Shocking Allegations Against Steven Greer

If you spend any time in UFO circles, you know the drama can sometimes drown out the data. This week, a conversation on the Danny Jones podcast lit up that fault line again. Researcher UAP Gerb (a figure many in the space describe as meticulous and well-sourced) outlined why, in his view, Steven Greer is losing credibility with some whistleblowers. Whether you’re team Greer, team skepticism, or simply team evidence, the discussion is a useful case study in how disclosure can veer off track—and how we can keep it grounded.

In this post, we’ll unpack the claims from the podcast, why they matter, and what they reveal about the ethics, risks, and responsibilities of UFO research today. We’ll also talk about how to stay focused on the ultimate prize: credible, verifiable evidence of non‑human intelligence, not personality clashes.

The short version: allegations were made; emotions are high; the community is divided. But the bigger story is about trust—who earns it, who loses it, and how operational security and researcher ethics can make or break a movement.

According to UAP Gerb, several whistleblowers connected to Greer reported facing reprisals around 2023—things like threats to pensions or reputational smears. He also claims Greer’s disclosure archives were so poorly secured that third parties could identify and contact witnesses. These are serious allegations, and they’re not independently verified here. Still, they raise important questions about how we safeguard sources and keep the disclosure ecosystem healthy.

Beyond the claims themselves, the podcast spotlighted a broader tension: Can a researcher be close friends with sources and still stay objective? And what actually makes someone a “great” UFO researcher—access, time, method, or something else entirely? Those are the questions worth sitting with, no matter where you stand on the Greer debate.

The Clip that Sparked the Conversation

On Danny Jones’s show, UAP Gerb outlined what he described as a pattern: whistleblowers who previously engaged with Steven Greer later experiencing pressure or threats—especially in 2023. He also criticized what he called poor operational security (OPSEC) in Greer’s Disclosure Project archives, saying it was possible to identify whistleblowers from the stored materials. One explosive claim: an allegation that a whistleblower was threatened with an underage content smear after cutting off contact. Again, these are claims made by a guest on a podcast, and they require thorough, independent vetting.

UAP Gerb also said he has never met Greer and that Greer once labeled him an “intelligence asset”—a remark that clearly set a combative tone. He further argued that whistleblowers who go to Greer can end up being treated as “Greer’s whistleblowers,” rather than individuals who should be independently guided toward formal channels like the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence or credible investigators such as David Grusch.

Why does this matter? Because trust is the currency of disclosure. When witnesses fear that coming forward could cost them their pensions, reputations, or safety—or when archives may reveal their identities—fewer people speak, and the quality of evidence declines.

The Allegations: Infiltration, Peprisals, and OPSEC

- Infiltration claims: The podcast touched on the idea that an individual was “tasked” to infiltrate Greer’s orbit. If true, that would underscore just how contested and surveilled this territory can be. If untrue, it shows how easy it is for intrigue to overtake substance. Either way, it reminds us to separate verifiable facts from rumor.

- Reprisals against whistleblowers: Allegations of pension threats, smear tactics, and pressure campaigns are chilling—and, if substantiated, disqualifying for anyone fostering a safe disclosure environment. Until claims are verified, the responsible stance is to press for evidence and encourage witnesses to use secure, accountable channels.

- Poor operational security: If archives truly allow outsiders to identify sensitive sources, that’s a solvable problem with serious consequences. Source protection isn’t optional; it’s the backbone of credible investigative work.

Can Researchers Be Friends with Sources?

It’s human to bond with people who share high-stakes experiences. But friendship can blur lines:

- Confirmation bias: You’re more likely to believe a friend. That can make you less aggressive about verification.

- Information laundering: Once someone trusts you, you might unknowingly pass along unvetted or strategically planted claims.

- Ethical obligations: The closer the relationship, the more careful you must be about consent, anonymity, and data security.

Friendship and rigor aren’t mutually exclusive, but researchers should be transparent about their relationships and methods. A simple litmus test: could another investigator replicate your sourcing and analysis from your public methodology? If not, you may be asking the audience to trust you, not your work.

What Makes a “Great” UFO Researcher?

The podcast indirectly raised a fair question: Why do some researchers get labeled “the best”? In UFOland, “best” sometimes means “has access.” But real excellence looks more like this:

- Clear methods: Documented sourcing, transparent standards of evidence, and explicit caveats.

- Corroboration across silos: Military, scientific, journalistic, and legal sources that align without being interdependent.

- OPSEC proficiency: Protecting sources’ identities and data, even from curious allies.

- Willingness to change: Updating claims when new facts emerge—publicly and promptly.

- Independence from personalities: Avoiding team sports. The only side is the truth.

If someone is heralded as elite, it’s reasonable—and healthy—to ask them to walk through their process. This isn’t gatekeeping; it’s how trust is earned.

Greer, Elizondo, and the Personality Trap

The conversation also touched on the long-simmering friction between Steven Greer and Luis Elizondo. This is where the disclosure space can slide into soap opera. On one side, there are accusations of disinformation; on the other, debates about credentials and past roles. Add in social media skirmishes and content monetization, and the narrative can quickly become about people rather than proof.

Here’s the thing: personalities don’t fly craft, data does. When the discourse revolves around who’s the hero or the villain, the public gets distracted. Agencies or bad actors—if they exist—would love that. The antidote is radical focus on evidence chains, not rivalries.

How to Stay Grounded: A Reader’s Guide to Evaluating Claims

- Track the claim, not the person: Write down the precise assertion, who made it, when, and where. Then ask: What would confirm or falsify it?

- Demand chain-of-custody: Photos, videos, documents, and sensor logs need provenance. Who held them, when, and under what conditions?

- Look for independent corroboration: Not friends-of-friends. Independent witnesses, distinct data streams, and official records.

- Distinguish testimony tiers: Firsthand experience is not the same as hearsay. Both can be valuable, but they’re not equal.

- Note incentives: Is someone selling a doc, a book, or a brand? That doesn’t make them wrong—but it does add context.

- Privilege accountable channels: Encourage witnesses to use secure routes—legal counsel, inspectors general, congressional committees, or reputable journalists who can protect identities and verify claims.

- Watch for OPSEC red flags: Publicly accessible archives containing sensitive details, sloppy redactions, or unencrypted communications are all risk multipliers.

The Heart of the Matter: Evidence of Non‑human Intelligence

The host of the original video said it plainly: at the end of the day, the only thing that really matters is the best evidence for non‑human intelligence. Everything else is a sideshow. That doesn’t mean people don’t matter—they do. It means we measure progress by the quality of confirmed data, not by who “wins” the week on Twitter.

So, What Would Move the Needle?

- Multi-sensor corroboration released with provenance and context.

- Official acknowledgement paired with accessible documentation, not just statements.

- High-quality, repeatable scientific measurements and peer-reviewed analysis.

- Whistleblowers who safely testify under oath, backed by records.

Each of these outcomes depends on an ecosystem that protects sources and values verification over virality. If the allegations discussed on the podcast are even partly accurate, reforming OPSEC and source handling isn’t optional—it’s mission-critical.

Practical Steps Researchers Can Take Now

- Harden archives: Encrypt, access-limit, and aggressively scrub identifying metadata. Test your systems by inviting trusted red-teamers to try to de-anonymize samples.

- Publish your method: A short methods page—how you vet claims, how you protect sources, how you correct mistakes—goes a long way toward building trust.

- Separate friendship from verification: If a source becomes a friend, state that and bring in an independent reviewer to check your analysis.

- Default to least-harm: If there’s any chance a detail could expose a witness, withhold it or abstract it unless and until the risk is mitigated.

- Encourage formal channels: Where appropriate, guide witnesses toward legal counsel, inspectors general, or congressional staff with clearance to handle sensitive materials.

- Be transparent about conflicts: Monetization, partnerships, and affiliations should be disclosed. Transparency beats suspicion.

Where this Leaves Steven Greer—and the Rest of Us

It’s fair to note that Greer has played a significant role in bringing forward whistleblowers and popularizing disclosure efforts for decades. Many credit him with pushing the conversation into the mainstream. It’s also fair—and necessary—to scrutinize any claims about poor OPSEC or mistreatment of sources. Both statements can be true at once: someone can contribute in one era and still have practices that merit criticism or reform in another.

As for UAP Gerb, his growing visibility brings its own responsibility. If you’re touted as a leading researcher, the community is right to ask for transparency about methods, sources of access, and how you manage conflicts of interest. Great work can withstand great questions.

The Takeaway

- Claims about infiltration, reprisals, and poor OPSEC are serious. They deserve independent verification—not dismissal, not blind acceptance.

- Researcher ethics matter. Friendship with sources can coexist with rigor, but only with explicit guardrails and transparency.

- Personalities aren’t the point. Evidence is. If the conversation stays focused on people instead of proof, everyone loses.

- Healthy disclosure demands strong OPSEC, replicable methods, and accountable channels for whistleblowers.

If you care about this topic—and if you’ve read this far, you do—the best contribution you can make is to keep one foot firmly in reality while you explore the unknown. Ask for receipts. Reward transparency. And don’t let the loudest voice in the room drown out the quiet, careful work that actually moves the ball forward.

What do you think? Should researchers be transparent about their process? What safeguards would make you more confident in whistleblower-driven revelations? Share your thoughts, challenge the ideas, and let’s keep the spotlight where it belongs—on verifiable evidence and the safety of those who risk a lot to bring it forward.