This is by far my favorite thing from the Greer archive yet. As there’s no deep-link available, you have to see the source for yourself:
[https://www.dpiarchive.com/#/view](https://www.dpiarchive.com/#/view)
Archive / UFO Videos-Photos / UFO Photos Worldwide / EBEs in the field.png
I can’t wait to go through all of the archive, there sure are some gems in there. Funny, confusing or just friendly EVEs waving – it’s a treasure trove.
JustAGuyFromSpace on
What’s the story attached to the images?
speleothems on
Aww that little guy waving.
I am definitely convinced. ^/s
smellybarbiefeet on
Lmao…. You’ve got be joking
SnoozeCoin on
>Photo with just the ground and the orb very clear
>photo with beings very grainy
🤔
_Exotic_Booger on
Holy shit. This absolutely cemented the fact I can’t take this guy seriously anymore.
BotUsername12345 on
There’s a lot to say about Greer, and this “catastrophic disclosure link” or what ever it is he marketed it as. However, here’s a thought on how photographic evidence simply may not be enough to to force UAP Disclosure alone. It could be the 1950s, you could take a few polaroids of a genuine UFO, get the images in the local paper, and people will still never believe you. Then, they’ll use your own photographs in the future, as evidence of how UFOs aren’t real.
From “After Disclosure” by Bryce Zabel & Richard Dolan, p. 96:
“His two photos were featured in Life magazine. 2 decades later they were analyzed by the University of Colorado’s UFO study. Even though the Committee’s leader, Edward Condon, had been predisposed to debunk all UFOs, the Trent photographs passed muster with the staff specialists, concluding “all factors investigated…appear to be consistent with the assertion that an extraordinary flying object, silvery, metallic, disc-shaped, tens of meters in diameter, and evidently artificial, flew within the sight of two witnesses.” (Condon, Dr. Edward U. Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects. Bantam Books, 1969. p. 407.)
Although the report acknowledged the possibility of some sort of hoax, it argued that a photometric analysis of the negatives made this very unlikely. In other words, there was no evidence of string supporting the discs photographed–the only realistic hoax method. Subsequent computer enhancements of the images reinforced this claim. The object was not a model, but in the air.
Yet, there have always been vocal skeptics who argue that no photograph is ever good enough. To those who have taken the time to study the history of UFO photographs, this brings no small amount of frustration. *There are many truly excellent images that have received in-depth analysis* … Yet the fact remains that any photograph, no matter how compelling, is open to the charge of having been enhanced or faked, no matter how remote the likelihood often seems. Therefore, neither the Trent photos, nor any of the other good photos taken forced an open acknowledgement of the reality of UFOs.
An element of doubt has irrevocably entered the realm of photographic analysis.”
Mundane-Inevitable-5 on
The “aliens” look like they were drawn by a child of very limited artistic ability.
I thought Greer was basically just a griffter with a messiah complex. Now I’m starting to genuinely think he may be a paid disinfo agent, mudfying the waters with as much nonsense as possible.
11 Comments
This is by far my favorite thing from the Greer archive yet. As there’s no deep-link available, you have to see the source for yourself:
[https://www.dpiarchive.com/#/view](https://www.dpiarchive.com/#/view)
Archive / UFO Videos-Photos / UFO Photos Worldwide / EBEs in the field.png
I can’t wait to go through all of the archive, there sure are some gems in there. Funny, confusing or just friendly EVEs waving – it’s a treasure trove.
What’s the story attached to the images?
Aww that little guy waving.
I am definitely convinced. ^/s
Lmao…. You’ve got be joking
>Photo with just the ground and the orb very clear
>photo with beings very grainy
🤔
Holy shit. This absolutely cemented the fact I can’t take this guy seriously anymore.
There’s a lot to say about Greer, and this “catastrophic disclosure link” or what ever it is he marketed it as. However, here’s a thought on how photographic evidence simply may not be enough to to force UAP Disclosure alone. It could be the 1950s, you could take a few polaroids of a genuine UFO, get the images in the local paper, and people will still never believe you. Then, they’ll use your own photographs in the future, as evidence of how UFOs aren’t real.
That’s basically what happened to Paul Trent, an Oregon Farmer who took [Two Photographs](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=paul%20trent%20ufo%20photos&ko=-1&iax=images&ia=images) of a UFO flying near their property near McMinnville, Oregon, in 1950.
From “After Disclosure” by Bryce Zabel & Richard Dolan, p. 96:
“His two photos were featured in Life magazine. 2 decades later they were analyzed by the University of Colorado’s UFO study. Even though the Committee’s leader, Edward Condon, had been predisposed to debunk all UFOs, the Trent photographs passed muster with the staff specialists, concluding “all factors investigated…appear to be consistent with the assertion that an extraordinary flying object, silvery, metallic, disc-shaped, tens of meters in diameter, and evidently artificial, flew within the sight of two witnesses.” (Condon, Dr. Edward U. Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects. Bantam Books, 1969. p. 407.)
Although the report acknowledged the possibility of some sort of hoax, it argued that a photometric analysis of the negatives made this very unlikely. In other words, there was no evidence of string supporting the discs photographed–the only realistic hoax method. Subsequent computer enhancements of the images reinforced this claim. The object was not a model, but in the air.
Yet, there have always been vocal skeptics who argue that no photograph is ever good enough. To those who have taken the time to study the history of UFO photographs, this brings no small amount of frustration. *There are many truly excellent images that have received in-depth analysis* … Yet the fact remains that any photograph, no matter how compelling, is open to the charge of having been enhanced or faked, no matter how remote the likelihood often seems. Therefore, neither the Trent photos, nor any of the other good photos taken forced an open acknowledgement of the reality of UFOs.
An element of doubt has irrevocably entered the realm of photographic analysis.”
The “aliens” look like they were drawn by a child of very limited artistic ability.
I thought Greer was basically just a griffter with a messiah complex. Now I’m starting to genuinely think he may be a paid disinfo agent, mudfying the waters with as much nonsense as possible.
‘Fake, schmake’ -Party Alien #1
Is that a live nasca mummy specimen ?
I’m on the fucking floor. Omg, please. my sides.