Questions for John Lear, page 23
Pages: <<  20    21    22    23    24    25    26  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 39 times


reply posted on 3-9-2006 @ 01:10 AM by CPL
Though I do not generally write on forums, I have had reason to write on this one a couple of times in the past month or two. The first was simply to respond to a suggestion by John Lear that I'd died a few years ago...which was news to me, so I thought that needed correcting. However, in reading what Lear was saying before he suggested I was dead, I realized that he had also decided to infer that I had misunderstood his statement (many years ago now) that he had taken part in making up the infamous Krill Memo. What he said to me then was straightforward, and I understood him and was shocked that he would even admit it to my face...the quote was I believe "we made it up"...referring to himself and a military officer he knew at the time. If John now prefers to say that I simply misunderstood him--so be it, he is free to say what he wants. The Krill Memo was ridiculous to me at the time anyway, being totally unfounded and unsupportable, if not silly for what it was. My advice to everyone would be to find better uses for their efforts than chasing something with so little substance.

However, my reason for writing now came about after seeing, quite by accident, another statement John made (that I just today saw on a Yahoo group). John's statement was this (it came from a previous note above):

"I have been taken to task by Chris Lambright on the internet for supposedly suppressing or changing the Bennewitz story."

For the record, I have never said or in any way suggested that John suppressed or changed Bennewitz's story...whatever story he might be referring too. There were a number of stories that surrounded Paul Bennewitz, and imho most of the truly bizarre ones were stories stroked and retold by others to make them grow, and in so doing they hurt Paul's credibility. If John had any part in any of those stories then he can explain that for himself. I, for one, have never taken him "to task" for anything to do with "the Bennewitz Story". There was a curious tale from John once that he had met a woman who claimed she could provide drawings of wild things in an underground base, drawings supposedly coming from a man she knew who supposedly had been in the base...and I told John that none of that amounted to any kind of proof of anything in my opinion. That said, the only real question I have had concerning John's impact on Paul Bennewitz stem from Paul's livid reaction when I spoke with him a few days after John's visit to his home (the rest isn't pertinent here; I cover it briefly in a book I am working on).

However, the above is only to make the point that whatever I think of John's involvement since the mid-1980's, it is not accurate to say I have taken him to task for "suppressing or changing the Bennewitz story." If he did, and someone has taken him to task for it...it was not me. I had my reasons, which John knows, for ceasing my association with him in any way relating to Ufology. He was, and I'm sure still is, a friendly and interesting guy, but the Krill Memo was only part of it.
Still, why all this seems suddenly to be an issue now, almost 20 years on, is beyond me. It is curious though...
-Chris Lambright


reply posted on 3-9-2006 @ 09:40 AM by johnlear
Originally posted by CPL


Though I do not generally write on forums, I have had reason to write on this one a couple of times in the past month or two. The first was simply to respond to a suggestion by John Lear that I'd died a few years ago...which was news to me, so I thought that needed correcting. However, in reading what Lear was saying before he suggested I was dead, I realized that he had also decided to infer that I had misunderstood his statement (many years ago now) that he had taken part in making up the infamous Krill Memo. What he said to me then was straightforward, and I understood him and was shocked that he would even admit it to my face...the quote was I believe "we made it up"...referring to himself and a military officer he knew at the time. If John now prefers to say that I simply misunderstood him--so be it, he is free to say what he wants. The Krill Memo was ridiculous to me at the time anyway, being totally unfounded and unsupportable, if not silly for what it was. My advice to everyone would be to find better uses for their efforts than chasing something with so little substance.

However, my reason for writing now came about after seeing, quite by accident, another statement John made (that I just today saw on a Yahoo group). John's statement was this (it came from a previous note above):

"I have been taken to task by Chris Lambright on the internet for supposedly suppressing or changing the Bennewitz story."

For the record, I have never said or in any way suggested that John suppressed or changed Bennewitz's story...whatever story he might be referring too. There were a number of stories that surrounded Paul Bennewitz, and imho most of the truly bizarre ones were stories stroked and retold by others to make them grow, and in so doing they hurt Paul's credibility. If John had any part in any of those stories then he can explain that for himself. I, for one, have never taken him "to task" for anything to do with "the Bennewitz Story". There was a curious tale from John once that he had met a woman who claimed she could provide drawings of wild things in an underground base, drawings supposedly coming from a man she knew who supposedly had been in the base...and I told John that none of that amounted to any kind of proof of anything in my opinion. That said, the only real question I have had concerning John's impact on Paul Bennewitz stem from Paul's livid reaction when I spoke with him a few days after John's visit to his home (the rest isn't pertinent here; I cover it briefly in a book I am working on).

However, the above is only to make the point that whatever I think of John's involvement since the mid-1980's, it is not accurate to say I have taken him to task for "suppressing or changing the Bennewitz story." If he did, and someone has taken him to task for it...it was not me. I had my reasons, which John knows, for ceasing my association with him in any way relating to Ufology. He was, and I'm sure still is, a friendly and interesting guy, but the Krill Memo was only part of it.
Still, why all this seems suddenly to be an issue now, almost 20 years on, is beyond me. It is curious though...
-Chris Lambright



Thanks Chris,

I am going to leave your entire post intact here so that people can refer back. And I'm hoping that you can respond more often than once every couple of years.

As I have said many times and will say again we 'made up' the name Krill. It came from the name CRLLL, an ET that the Pentagon has supposedly interviewed in the 50's.

If you prefer to say that it was not the name Krill, but in fact the entire document that we made up thats OK! Its fine with me. John Grace wrote it and I came up with the title.

I was wrong in saying you accused me of somehow changing the Bennewitz story. I thought that was one of your complaints. Sorry.

As for Paul being 'livid' I recall that he was livid because, as you told me, "Paul expected you to take his information to Congress and you didn't". Please set the record straight.

And, Chris, its obviously been a long time since you checked in. The woman with the drawing of 'wild things in an underground base'? I have never publically identified her but the guy who worked there was Thomas Castello, since disappeared and assumed deceased. This information was backed up by Phil Scneider also murdered. And there are 3 other sources confirming the existence of Dulce as described by Castello to the woman.

Don't be such a stranger!


reply posted on 13-9-2006 @ 09:33 AM by johnlear
Originally posted by AGENT_T



We were talking flying as usual and as I brought up the topic of an amateur pilot flying a commercial airliner so-so feet from the ground at full speed to hit the pentagon he looked a little more skeptical than I am used to seeing.

He brought up the very real and very relevant point of ground proximity effect upon the plane and said he found it ''very difficult'' to believe that the plane could have followed the reported last few seconds of flight path.

He mentioned at such a high speed also the plane would have a tendency to ''spiral''( I forgot the term he used) uncontrollably at low altitude

BTW He was drunk because he had to perform his very first ''missed approach'' in his career AWWWWW!!!


Hello Agent T, I've had a few memorable missed approaches, all in weather. They keep the crew busy.

The chances of an amateur pilot flying the profile into the Pentagon are zero, nil. It just couldn't be done. First of all, as I mentioned in another thread, the control forces would be extremely heavy because the flaps are up (which limits the authority of the controls). Second of all to bring the airliner down to about a foot off of the ground and keep it there while impacting the Pentagon is not highly unlikely, its impossible. At that high speed (or any speed for the matter, but more at high speed) there is a huge amount of air passing under the wing. When this huge amount of air contacts the ground (called 'ground effect' and manifests itself at about one half the span of the wing or in this case about 70 or 80 feet) there is a huge buoying effect which tends to bounce the airplane up. In the profile I watched I saw not the slightest bounce or 'buoy'. The skill level required to keep an airliner traveling at 350 to 450 knots within 1 foot of the ground is phenomenal. It would be slightly easier to hit the Pentagon in a steep dive such that 'ground effect' would not play a role. But if that were the case, more of the empennage or tail assembly would have been thrown up and over the Pentagon on impact. As I have mentioned before, the only way that the WTC or Pentagon scenarios could have happened with a pilot at the controls (as opposed to remote control) would be to have trained the pilots in a Boeing 757/767 visual simulator. Base on my experience this would have taken about 300 to 500 hours. Training is given in 4 hour periods once a day. So 75 to 125 days training with one day off every 5 days of training. Thats a lot of simulator time each for 4 pilots. You certainly could not contract kind of time from an air carrier simply because they have their own pilots to train and keep current. Most of the middle east carriers operate Airbuses. Only Israel operates the Boeing 757/767 and would have a Boeing 757/767 simulator. But why would Israel want to train Arab terrorists how to crash into buildings with a 757/767?
Pages: <<  20    21    22    23    24    25    26  >>    ^^TOP^^