really...a hoax?? Man nothing burns my bacon more than a hoax !!

do these IDIOTS realize they hurt the UFO community when they do that. Its no wonder that the mainstream media and people think UFO investigators are crackpots. I swear if i know anyone who hoaxes anything to do with UFO's they are going to eat a knuckle sandwich with extra knuckles !! GRRRRRRRRRR !!




Thanks for the info John.......I appreciate you checking into that.....hey if your ever in the Massachusetts area let me know and I will buy you a few Guinness's at my local watering hole !!

Originally posted by Implosion



How often to you find your opinions changing on all the UFO/conspiracy theories you currently share with us?

Do you believe yourself to be 100% correct on any of the theories/ideas that you share with us? If so, which?


[edit on 4/10/06 by Implosion]

Yes these questions intrest me also as it seems that your opinions change rather quickly

yet another question:

you said that something caused the aliens on mars to live underground...

so, the aliens are so advanced but they can't fix this problem and live on the surface???

Originally posted by Implosion

I thought it might be a good time to ask you some simple questions:

Why are you here at ATS, what do you hope to achieve here?

I like putting in my 2 cents worth on the many varied subjects here on ATS. I never thought about ATS in terms of any kind of acheivement.

Do you have any financial interests of any kind within the UFO/conspiracy market?

I was a speaker at the Bay Area UFO Conference and made $1000 plus $400 for gas for my truck. (I don't like to fly on airlines anymore mostly because of the humiliating security procedures and I can't take all my stuff with me.) So I don't mind driving 12 hours to get somewhere. It was the first time in many years I have charged for a lecture. I am a tad short these days and needed the money.

Are you planning on releasing any form of media production [book/film/whatever] for purchase in the near future?

No. All my efforts are directed in getting my extremely small gold mine in production.

How often to you find your opinions changing on all the UFO/conspiracy theories you currently share with us?

Whenever the evidence warrants. For instance, I wrote a paper in 1987 that the Greys were on a bell-shaped curve life cycle and needed our DNA to survive. I don't believe that anymore. I thought that Arab hijackers themselves flew the Boeings into the WTC. I don't believe that anymore. I thought that flight 93 was shot down by an F-16, I don't believe that anymore. I never believed that a Boeing 757 flew into the side of the Pentagon. That scenario is just too ridiculous to believe in the first place.

Do you believe yourself to be 100% correct on any of the theories/ideas that you share with us? If so, which?

No. I do not believe myself to be 100% correct on anything. Sometimes I make the error of not including "this is my opinion" often enough in my posts. For instance, in the post on holograms I should have said, "This is how it may have happened" instead of "This is how it happened." I should have made it clear that the Air Force proposal for 2025 was "very likely" operational now based on the fact that the governments technology is about 50 years ahead of where everybody thinks it is, not "it is operational now". Regarding the hologram theory I still don't know how or what I said that made people think it including Shanksville and the Pentagon. The hologram theory was good for the WTC only. (and still is. an opinion. a theory, a possibility)

Are you trying to turn people around to your own way of thinking? If so, why?

No, I don't care what people think. If I did, I would probably have answered Defcon5's aviation preschool/nursery/ramprat questions differently.

Is it really worth all the hassle?

Getting slammed, tarred and feathered, insulted, pwned and heaped with ridicule on ATS helps build my character and firmly grounds me to reality. (Or what people think is reality.)

Thanks Implosion for the opportunity to answer these questions. I would like to commment on the hologram theory. Many are trying to evaluate the technology of 3 dimensional holograms with current knowledge and conventional wisdom. It can't be done. Anymore than cowboys sitting around the campfire in the 1880's would try to conceive of how a television would work. For those of you who still post "we know" holograms don't make shadows and holograms don't make noise: No you don't. All you know is that with today's technology holograms don't make shadows and don't make noise. You don't have any idea what tomorrow's technology will bring. Thanks again Implosion.

My question is about the plane at the pentigon. I have a very rudimentary understanding of ground effect, "its really hard to make the plane go down when you are close to the ground".
My question is, if the pilot did not care if he died or if the plane lost control as long as it hit close to the target, what effect would these have on your opinion as to the difficulty of the manuever?

Originally posted by ultralo1

My question is about the plane at the pentigon. I have a very rudimentary understanding of ground effect, "its really hard to make the plane go down when you are close to the ground".

At 500 mph? Extremely difficult. That is an opinion. I never flew an airliner at 500 mph at 5 feet off of the ground.

My question is, if the pilot did not care if he died or if the plane lost control as long as it hit close to the target, what effect would these have on your opinion as to the difficulty of the manuever?

I'm don't understand this question. Sorry.

hey you skipped my question

I don't think that is what John meant:

That tell us that if their technology is so highly advanced and their ufos crash so rarely then their presence in Earth is huge, way more than we thought

or this:

It tells me that those figures are wrong. I heard somewhere that the nuke testing somehow affects the magnetic properties/feild or something in some places and that's why some ufos cash.

If I may add my 2 cents I think he is trying to say that the crashes are from man/woman made UFO's -- not the really advanced E.T. craft. Please correct me if I am mistaken, John.

Thanks,

zoop

JUST JOINING THE FUN *** HI DAD *!*

Originally posted by they see ALL

yet another question:

you said that something caused the aliens on mars to live underground...

so, the aliens are so advanced but they can't fix this problem and live on the surface???

Is this a question or sarcastic comment? If its a question then I assume you want to know if they have evolved into beings that don't need air or whatever might be presently available on the surface of Mars. The answer would be no, they are very similar to us and need air and water. Since, apparently, the atmosphere on Mars is not sufficient to support life they live underground.

As to the sarcastic part of your question, which I assusme means, if they are so advanced why can't they create their own atmosphere, I don't know. Sounds like a pretty big job to me.

If you have another question I would appreciate if you could give me the simple courtesy of a straightforward question, worded without sarcasm and in return I promise not to answer in a sarcastic manner. Unless, of course, its a really, really, stupid question. Thanks.

I will try to clearify my question.
I dont think that ground effect was that big of a hurdle to the pilot of the plane. I think he did not care if the plane was destroyed or not or if he lost control of it. The end results would have been the same, a plane crashed into the pentigon. If he would have come in like he did and hit the ground close to the pentigon there would still have been alot of destruction. If you think about it maybe that was what he was trying to do, but the air cushion from the ground effect would not let him make it to the ground at that angle of approach. I dont think it was the skill of the pilot as much as dumb luck that let him hit the pentigon and not the ground.

I realize that this is not in a question form. I could not figure out how to ask it. So would you please tell me if my hypothesis holds water or not. If not please elaborate because I have no expeirence in the pilot seat.
Thanks

Originally posted by ultralo1

I will try to clearify my question.
I dont think that ground effect was that big of a hurdle to the pilot of the plane. I think he did not care if the plane was destroyed or not or if he lost control of it. The end results would have been the same, a plane crashed into the pentigon. If he would have come in like he did and hit the ground close to the pentigon there would still have been alot of destruction. If you think about it maybe that was what he was trying to do, but the air cushion from the ground effect would not let him make it to the ground at that angle of approach. I dont think it was the skill of the pilot as much as dumb luck that let him hit the pentigon and not the ground.

I realize that this is not in a question form. I could not figure out how to ask it. So would you please tell me if my hypothesis holds water or not. If not please elaborate because I have no expeirence in the pilot seat.
Thanks

Heres the problem with the Boeing 757 Pentagon approach: As he descends and picks up speed while approaching the Pentagon he is going to get drastic and significant pitch changes which will require him to operate the pitch trim button on the wheel. Otherwise he won't have the physical strength to overcome the forces of the elevator. Then when he hits ground effect at about 75 to 100 feet he is going to get a drastic lift component created by the the ground effect which will require drastic pitch changes in the other direction. Since electric pitch trim changes the trim at given rate it is inconceivable that a pilot with limited skill who has never flown a Boeing 757 could keep up with these drastic pitches changes with pitch trim to keep the airplane level at 5 feet. My opinion is that it couldn't happen and that it didn't happen.

Originally posted by DeathSparesNotTheTiger
Hello John, I have a couple questions, do the people like us on other planets grow awesome marijuanna?

are you kidding me ?? Could you not have asked a better question than that ?? if I were John...I would not even waste my time with an inane query like that.

Thank you for the explaination.

Originally posted by ALLILEARJET

JUST JOINING THE FUN *** HI DAD *!*

Hi Alli and Happy Birthday. I would like to introduce my daughter Alli who has an interest in all we are discussing. Alli's son is Damien, the grandson that I am always bragging about.

Welcome to ATS!!!!

I have been getting a lot of pounding lately.



Don't take it seriously, I don't.

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by ALLILEARJET

JUST JOINING THE FUN *** HI DAD *!*

Hi Alli and Happy Birthday. I would like to introduce my daughter Alli who has an interest in all we are discussing. Alli's son is Damien, the grandson that I am always bragging about.

Welcome to ATS!!!!

I have been getting a lot of pounding lately.



Don't take it seriously, I don't.

Welcome to ATS Alli !! Hope you have a great time here and learn as much as I.

Welcome to the party.
Not everybody is trying to beat up your Dad.

Originally posted by DeathSparesNotTheTiger

Hello John, I have a couple questions, do the people like us on other planets grow awesome marijuanna?

Funny you should mention that. Just the other day John Titor gave me a toke of some incredible Venus Flytrap. Similar to Maui Wowie but more 'outer space' if you know what I mean.

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by DeathSparesNotTheTiger

Hello John, I have a couple questions, do the people like us on other planets grow awesome marijuanna?

Funny you should mention that. Just the other day John Titor gave me a toke of some incredible Venus Flytrap. Similar to Maui Wowie but more 'outer space' if you know what I mean.

I always thought John Titor wasn't real. Well I don't believe in anything that is said about him or that he claims, but I didn't know he actually existed.