It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Questions for John Lear

page: 77
39
<< 74  75  76    78  79  80 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Access Denied:



I see so what you’re trying to say is the only people you want to post here are those who say what you want to hear and reinforce your beliefs?


That is not the context i posted that in, or not what i intended the context to be.

This is a forum designed for people to discuss things that are often shirked by academia. Proven, observed phenomena make up only a portion of what is discussed here. Much of it is speculative at best.

Consider the following


Some quotations collected by Christopher Cerf and Victor Navakky in their book The Experts Speak (1984) illustrated further the hostile or trivializing attitude towards different ideas, scientific inquiries, and revolutionary discoveries.


"Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction." -Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology France, 1872 (p.30)

"Fooling around with alternating current in just a waste of time. Nobody will use it, ever." -Thomas Edison, 1889 (p.207)


"I laughed till. . . my sides were sore." -Adam Sedgwick, British geologist in a letter to Darwin in regards to his theory of evolution, 1857 (p.9)


"If the whole of the English language could be condensed into one word, it would not suffice to express the utter contempt those invite who are so deluded as to be disciples of such an imposture as Darwinism." -Francis Orpen Morris, British ornithologist 1877 (p.10)


"Airplanes are interesting toys, but of no military value." - Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre (p.245)


"To affirm that the aeroplane is going to 'revolutionize' naval warfare of the future is to be guilty of the wildest exaggeration." -Scientific American, 1910 (p.246)


"Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" - H. M. Warner, Warner Brothers Studios, 1927 (p.72)


"The whole procedure of shooting rockets into space. . . presents difficulties of so fundamental a nature, that we are forced to dismiss the notion as essentially impracticable, in spite of the author's insistent appeal to put aside prejudice and to recollect the supposed impossibility of heavier-than-air flight before it was actually accomplished." -Richard van der Riet Wooley, British astronomer (p.257)


"The energy produced by the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine." Ernst Rutherford, 1933 (p.215)


"Space travel is bunk" - Sir Harold Spencer Jones, Astronomer Royal of Britain, 1957, two weeks before the launch of Sputnik (p.258)


"But what hell is it good for?" -Engineer Robert Lloyd, IBM 1968, commenting on the microchip (p.209)


"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." -Ken Olson, president of Digital Equipment Corp. 1977 (p.209)

Several of the above examples show new ideas that were grievously misjudged by scientific peers and those in authority.

amasci.com...

Don't forget the follies of science that have led to this jaded point of view.

To me denying ignorance means:

to not ignore facts that have some level of relevence, in spite of any cognitive dissonance that my persist on a personal level.

Since ignorance is defined as being unaware or uninformed, it would seem to me that informing oneself is the best way to deny ignorance.

This means i must consider ALL things on some varying level of probability until proven impossible. This does not mean assumed impossible, or shown improbable. It means proven impossible.

It does not mean that i have to believe things to be true, only that i must believe them to be possible, and to keep the concept as an open topic until final proof is recieved.

Chorlton - I thought that no warning was needed? I had presumed that the concepts of "let the buyer beware" were somewhat self evident and claims of soul collectors would be considered in that light. Regardless, i do not think it necessary to warn people of things that they are capable of judging on their own. Otherwise, they will fall to a calamity much worse than believing in soul collectors before their life is over, i fear, and no one will be there to save them.




posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Chorlton - I thought that no warning was needed? I had presumed that the concepts of "let the buyer beware" were somewhat self evident and claims of soul collectors would be considered in that light. Regardless, i do not think it necessary to warn people of things that they are capable of judging on their own. Otherwise, they will fall to a calamity much worse than believing in soul collectors before their life is over, i fear, and no one will be there to save them.


Then we must agree to disagree.
If people are allowed to postulate ridiculous but dangerous beliefs publicly, then those who disagree must be given the same right to either counter those claims or warn people that the original postulations are simply that.

As I stated Mr Lear has a way of stating things which seem to imply some sort of truth which some could believe ARE true. Yep he always points to his sig when challenged but he isnt always challenged because people cant be bothered.

There are an awfull lot of people who will follow blindly things that are stated by some people who claim or attain some sort of credibility by simply having their head above the parapet for some time.
It is thses people who I am worried about.

Now I want to know about Mr Lears Lunar Cheese smuggling. He thinks I dont know about it but I have my contacts



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chorlton
There are an awfull lot of people who will follow blindly things that are stated by some people who claim or attain some sort of credibility by simply having their head above the parapet for some time.
It is thses people who I am worried about.


Well the problem with that is it works both ways... The followers of the "Main Stream Science" cult are equally as bad. They will spout endless pages of scientific "fact" that may or may not be the truth as scientific knowledge is in a constant state of change.. A couple years ago teleportation was a sci fi fantasy, people scoffed at this idea, yet now they have made real progress in both theory and fact, and the DoD and AFRL have papers researching "Teleportation via Stargate Wormholes" and point out the fact that these wormholes would be capable of not only point to point transfers, but to other universes, other dimensions and time itself.

Tell you what, I would rather believe those sources than some skeptic in a thread post who has no formal training and is merely repeating accepted dogma.

From now on I would appreciate a "warning" on all such posts as well


Here is a little thing to think about as far as "mainstream" scientists are concerned...




An essay in Speculative Engineering by T. B. Pawlicki

At the end of the nineteenth century, the most distinguished
scientists and engineers declared that no known combination of
materials and locomotion could be assembled into a practical flying
machine. Fifty years later another generation of distinguished
scientists and engineers declared that it was technologically
infeasible for a rocket ship to reach the moon. Nevertheless, men
were getting off the ground and out into space even while these
words were uttered.


Source

Here is another view, presented by Patrick G. Bailey, Ph. D.
Vice President, Institute for New Energy
P.O. Box 201 Los Altos, CA 94023-0201.

Presented at the
Second International Symposium on New Energy (2nd ISNE)
May 12-15, 1994
Denver, CO



My interest was aroused as a teenager by reading about the life and contributions of Nikola Tesla, now available in the books by Walters (1961) and Cheney (1981). He is the one individual responsible for creating the entire alternating current network that powers the world today. He defied the science of his day, and designed and built the AC generator that transforms "potential" energy into "electrical" energy. Yet, he is not in many school texts, and his basic theories and ideas for larger projects and applications were nearly lost to the world. Why was he not supported? Why is Thomas Edison such a well known name and Nikola Tesla is not? Why was his research not actively continued? Why does the academic community, within the U.S., continually ignore the possible applications of his theories?

Tesla was unceremoniously thrown out of the best technical school in Yugoslavia for believing that he could build a generator that would extract electrical power from a running stream of water. His professor called it: "Perpetual Motion!" This is not so unfamiliar. We have heard other such convenient explanations, such as: "Heavier than air machines will never fly" (Lord Kelvin, 1890's); "We threw out all of the textbooks, and then we built the airplane" (the Wright Brothers); "The human body will not survive speeds of over 40 miles per hour" (early 1900's); and "Airplanes can not go faster than the speed of sound" (1940's). Other example abound, all spoken by the out-spoken "leaders" of their day. My view is that science continues to grow and mature. Nature is fixed. Only our understanding of Nature continually unfolds. Sometimes this growth has been only painful, and sometimes it has provided great shocks to the system. Fear of change is not an adequate excuse for not actively pursuing the development of our full capabilities as human beings, as individuals or as groups.


Source

And one more, though I doubt very much that those who MOST need to read these documents will even follow the link...



Cognitive Processes and the Suppression of Sound Scientific Ideas
J. Sacherman 1997

American and British history is riddled with examples of valid research and inventions which have been suppressed and derogated by the conventional science community. This has been of great cost to society and to individual scientists. Rather than furthering the pursuit of new scientific frontiers, the structure of British and American scientific institutions leads to conformity and furthers consensus-seeking. Scientists are generally like other people when it comes to the biases and self-justifications that cause them to make bad decisions and evade the truth. Some topics in science are 'taboo' subjects. Two examples are the field of psychic phenomenon and the field of new energy devices such as cold fusion. Journals, books and internet sites exist for those scientists who want an alternative to conformist scientific venues.


Source

Personally I think "main stream scientists" hold amongst their ranks mankind's worst enemies, just by their attitudes to anything new that might upset their pet theories and their grants...

Its not hard to find a list of scientists who thought outside the box and tried to bring alternate technology to mankind and paid for it with their lives, because their ideas would interfere with profits of those in power.

So I fear for those in here that are being subjected to the cult dogma of "Mainstream Science"

Turnabout is fair play. The skeptics always shout "DENY IGNORANCE" while in fact they are promoting ignorance of other ideas



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Look I dont have any problems with the way most subjects are posted by most people here.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and to put forwards their ideas on things, UFO, the moon etc

Its when they try to imply that those ideas are fact, by the way they word their post.
THATS what worries me.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chorlton
And personal attack? I posted a light hearted response to someones question and was slyly insulted by zorgon. I replied in what I thought was a similar vein.It was not intended as an insult, if it was, I apologise.


None necessary, but accepted
I did not take it as an insult. If we can't take a little mud slinging we need to get out of the park... And thanks Mr Furry for the defense



The problem as I see it, is that there are no facts. Only photographs which certain people are making wild statements about as if ther are indeed facts,


Now see? Here is where I have the problem... I have posted page after page with link after link on facts from reputable sources, not only images. It really irks me when those that scream to see the facts, cannot even be bothered to READ the link.

In the stargate thread I posted papers from the Department of Energy and the Air Force Research Lab talking about stargates... Iy took many many tries to get anyone to even read them... One person even claimed he looked but saw nothing interesting, could I please highlight the interesting parts.

Okay fine, if thats what it takes to wake some people up, so be it (not directed at you Chorlton)

Here are the highlights of those papers.. The first excerpt is from PAGE 1, so if someone opened it they would KNOW...


Teleportation Physics Study
DTIC Copy - AFRL-PR-ED-TR-2003-0034
APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED
AIR FORCE RESEARCH LABORATORY
AIR FORCE MATERIEL COMMAND
EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE CA 93524-7048

14. ABSTRACT
This study was tasked with the purpose of collecting information describing the teleportation of material objects, providing a description of teleportation as it occurs in physics, its theoretical and experimental status, and a projection of potential applications. The study also consisted of a search for teleportation phenomena occurring naturally or under laboratory conditions that can be assembled into a model describing the conditions required to accomplish the transfer of objects. This included a review and documentation of quantum teleportation, its theoretical basis, technological development, and its potential applications. The characteristics of teleportation were defined and physical theories were evaluated in terms of their ability to completely describe the phenomena. Contemporary physics, as well as theories that presently challenge the current physics paradigm were investigated. The author identified and proposed two unique physics models for teleportation that are based on the manipulation of either the general relativistic spacetime metric or the spacetime vacuum electromagnetic (zero-point fluctuations) parameters. Naturally occurring anomalous teleportation phenomena that were previously studied by the United States and foreign governments were also documented in the study and are reviewed in the report.


The second excerpt from the slide show presentation that goes with the document...




Teleportation via Wormhole-Stargates
U.S. Air Force Teleportation Physics Study

Eric W. Davis, Ph.D., FBIS
Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin
4030 W. Braker Lane, Ste. 300
Austin, TX 78759

Two Kinds of vm-Teleportation Identified for the Air Force Study

• Traversable Wormhole engineered as a “STARGATE”
(via Einstein’s General Relativity Theory field equations, 1915)

• Faster-Than-Light (FTL) solutions of the Polarizable-Vacuum Representation of General Relativity (Davis,Puthoff, Maccone, 2003; , Puthoff, 1999, 2000) induce a flat-spacetime version of the Stargate via engineering the vacuum EM parameters

Part 1: What are Traversable Wormholes?

• Hyperspace tunnels thru spacetime, which can:

1. connect together remote regions within our universe
2. connect together different universes
3. connect together different space dimensions (for higher dimensional wormholes)
4. connect together different chronological periods within the same space region (backwards time travel!)

Part 2 - What are Traversable Wormholes?

• Traversable Wormholes possess:

1. normal or backwards time flow
2. normal or nonexistent gravitational stresses on space travelers
3. entry/exit openings (or throats) that can be made to be spherically shaped, cubic shaped,polyhedral shaped, generic shaped, etc.
4. flat entry/exit openings are possible – a true STARGATE or flat doorway through spacetime & dimensions!


Source

Some intelligent individual laughed at me in a thread when (in response to a question by another poster) I suggested that in addition to anti-gravity that the person might want to use the term "gravity shielding" when they searched the LANL archives...

Try also doing the same search at LLNL and Sandia Labs... no I am not providing those links, the papers are all on my website and its easy to google those initials

Here is a patent at the US patent office, that cites the papers I just mentioned...
Volfson, Boris Space vehicle propelled by the pressure of inflationary vacuum state pat# US6960975 Date Issued 2005-11-01

Thats right folkes ... an anti gravity saucer design supported by LANL research (and older works) and that has been accepted by the US patent office... (the actual patent will be available shortly at my site, but surely you can do a little digging on your own, hmmm?

So John says we have anti gravity.... I say we have had anti gravity since at least 1968, and the patent office has many anti gravity related patents on file and now a saucer to boot



and other wild statemnts made by Mr Lear in which he states things as actual fact when it is nothing of the sort. Yes when challenged on a matter he will point to his sig, but that is after he has so worded his statement that it comes over as fact.


Thousands of people at ATS state their opinions, and those people mostly believe their own opinions... John has used remote viewing at times to back up hist opinions and the skeptics say "Oh thats not valid... etc" yet the CIA spent 20 million in 1968 to train remote viewers in a program oddly enough known as "Project Stargate"... the program ran until 1995, when it was absorbed into other departments. The results are still top secret. Look up a term..." 8-martini result" I have a copy of the CIA remote viewing handbook on my site.

It seems to me if John's opinions effect you so much more than anyone else on ATS, might suggest you stop reading them?



there are a lot of impressionable people out there who will take whatever some lower celebrity says as gospel. Those people should be warned that what has been posted has no factual basis and is simply wild speculation on the part of someone seeking attention.


Well as a defender of the weak minded, perhaps you should spend more time attacking the evils of television, video games, and ipods that are causing people to tune out the real world. Start with Fox News for example.



My only problem in your posts really is that you (and others) feel the need to attack John on a personal level... that comment you made "someone seeking attention" is a very rude assumption on your part when you have never even met the man... and in all honesty, that can just as easily be applied to you, sir.

The number of threads started by others ABOUT John are simply amazing> I think its fantastic that he reaches out to so many of you



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   
To Chorlton...

You asked my stand on the atmosphere on the moon...

Okay all my work on that has been posted in several threads and is available on my website...

However, just for you and one last time....

THERE IS AN ATMOSPHERE ON THE MOON!! This is NOT in question. NASA has their figures on the composition of that atmosphere and so do other institutions...

To argue that there is NO atmosphere in the face of that data is ludicrous and definitely promoting ignorance to those you claim to protect...

The ONLY question at this point is "How Much?"

Okay are we clear on this point? No?


Encyclopedia Britanica
Though the Moon is surrounded by a vacuum higher than is usually created in laboratories on Earth, its atmosphere is extensive and of high scientific interest.


NASA's Fact Sheet on the Lunar Atmosphere


During an occultation of the Crab nebula, astronomers using a radio telescope at Cambridge University detected a slight bending of the rays of the nebula. This deflection could have been due to a thin lunar atmosphere.



In 1956 observers reported what appeared to be a cloud above the crater Alphonsus. In 1958 a Soviet astronomer, Nikolai A. Kozyrev, announced an apparent eruption from the crater. He took spectrograms, which indicated the presence of rarefied gases. His findings caused a revival of debates on the volcanic versus the meteoric origin of moon craters. Many scientists believed that Kozyrev had seen not a true volcanic eruption but a puff of gas and dust from below the surface, probably caused by heat.
Encyclopedia Britanica


Lick observatory photo #1 1946



Same observatory a few days later



Plume of dust or vapor billowing up and levelling off at a ceiling...





John has said that the color of the sky might be blue or yellow...


According to studies at the Boston University the atmosphere on the Moon contains a LOT of sodium. And they state that the exosphere reaches out several lunar diameters...



Source: Full Report PDF file

Hmmm heavy sodium content.... put me down for "Yellow"


Do I personally know if I could take my helmet off? I do not at this time have enough data to say yes or no, but as I have read Johns full statements about how much air is there (and I am sure most of you here missed the details in your haste to pounce) at this time I will remain open on the idea. When I first looked at space science years ago I would have stated there is no atmosphere on the moon... now I know better, and will reserve judgment on how much when I get more facts.


The Hammer Feather experiment on the Moon... the atmosphere on the moon has no heavy winds and depending on the density of the atmosphere the experiment would still work on such a short fall. I would like to see it repeated from a higher point.

Conversely if the Moon landing was hoaxed in full or even in part, maybe that film was shot in that big vacuum chamber posted in that other thread. It is also possible that the feather was weighted...

So the film from NASA is not proof either way...


Gravity...

The neutral point according to von Braun was 43,000 +- That in equations yields gravity on the moon at .64 % of Earth...

This distance is confirmed by readings on the Apollo craft when it reached the point where the Earths pull was exactly the same as the Moon's pull on the spacecraft... in other words the point where the craft started accelerating to the Moon..

Looking back at old news footage and remembering what they told us back in the days before the landing, the astronauts were training in 1/6th G environment. ne method was a harness where they were lying sideways and tension was set at 1/6th G. They did flips and summersaults in the air, getting easily several feet off the ground.

Popular TV showed that they would be able to make large leaps across the surface, pick up big rocks effortlessly, which in a 1/6th G environment you could indeed do... After all thats what gave Superman his strength, as he was from a planet with heavier gravity
(talk about conditioning people
)

Okay so then I watch the video clips on the Moon, especially Apollo 17..

They can barely make hops a few inches off the ground...
They are short of breath on even simple inclines...
There is one conversation where one astronaut likes a large rock... the other says, well why don't you just pick it up... and he answers no I don't think so... (It wasn't a very large one really)

The evidence of my eyes tells me they are working in half gravity, not 1/6th

The dust has been mentioned... if there is so little gravity as claimed why does it fall back so quickly?

I would really like to see some film footage of how dust behaves in other environments say on the space station...



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 05:33 PM
link   
I would have to say that the conni was my favorite airplane to this day. And i lived so close that it would go right over the apartments i lived in. I miss those days. I had had a lot of experiences that where unexplained in that area and always wondered what they where experimenting with in those hangers. And now thinking back on those days, There where always sounds coming from the hangers that where not your normal jet sounds.

Did you happen to be in the crowd of observers ( mostly Lockheed employees) That got to see the stealth do a touch and go on the runway at Burbank airport before they unveiled it to the public. I had gotten lucky and knew someone that got inside info about it. And i did know about the move to Palmdale. I had moved there back in 1995 Most people think that Lockheed closed down out there shortly after that. But i had worked clearing fields and large property and had seen the stealth bomber and what i believed to be f-16 fighters flying low formations in the middle of know where. did you know a man that sold aircraft parts in north Hollywood? I used to work for him. I believe his last name was Kilby. I have many questions, But i will save them for another time. You seem to have enough to keep you busy for awhile. And most of my questions have to do with People and places you have known and met. It could be you knew my father but i wont say his name here. Not that he was that important but when i was younger i had met a lot of people through where he was working. The corner of Ventura and Vineland. Studio city. Just curious. And lastly, Do you do you know Hal Needham? Like i said, im full of questions. Thank you.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chorlton
Look I dont have any problems with the way most subjects are posted by most people here.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and to put forwards their ideas on things, UFO, the moon etc

Its when they try to imply that those ideas are fact, by the way they word their post.
THATS what worries me.

Oh No. Not another I gotta save everyone from hemselves kinda guy. Geez thats the problem these days. Free thought is so feared by mainstream thinking. Why is that?
And for you too presume you are more competent than others who believe other than you do is just so shallow in thinking its hillarious.
Please dont feel you have to save anyone here Thank You. Many of us are a bit smarter than you give credit for.
And your constant cross bearing for proven science act is very tiring.
However I do enjoy your participation other than your krass remarks at levity.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
To Chorlton...
You asked my stand on the atmosphere on the moon...
Okay all my work on that has been posted in several threads and is available on my website...
However, just for you and one last time....
THERE IS AN ATMOSPHERE ON THE MOON!! This is NOT in question. NASA has their figures on the composition of that atmosphere and so do other institutions...
To argue that there is NO atmosphere in the face of that data is ludicrous and definitely promoting ignorance to those you claim to protect...


Please point me to the post where I stated there was no atmosphere on the moon?

What I actually said was:

"Do you believe there is, as Lear states, a 'breathable' atmosphere, a sufficient atmosphere that the wearing of breathing apparatus wouldnt be needed?.



Do I personally know if I could take my helmet off? I do not at this time have enough data to say yes or no, but as I have read Johns full statements about how much air is there (and I am sure most of you here missed the details in your haste to pounce) at this time I will remain open on the idea. When I first looked at space science years ago I would have stated there is no atmosphere on the moon... now I know better, and will reserve judgment on how much when I get more facts....


But Mr Lear when asked what would he do if he landed on the moon said something about throwing off his helmet and jumping about or words to that effetc



The evidence of my eyes tells me they are working in half gravity, not 1/6th


NO, you *think* they are working in half gravity but you do not know and there we have the crux of the problem. You speak as if you know these things as fact when you do not

From your other thread you stated
....



My only problem in your posts really is that you (and others) feel the need to attack John on a personal level... that comment you made "someone seeking attention" is a very rude assumption on your part when you have never even met the man... and in all honesty, that can just as easily be applied to you, sir. ....


I am not attacking Mr Lear on a personal level at all, I am attacking what he says and how he says it. He makes statements that are worded carefully to make them sound like fact, yet when challenged he simply points to his sig and says "Thats my opinion". That to me is a very snide way of doing things and as I have stated can have a serious effect on impressionable people.
Its a fact of life that if someone stands up and shouts outrageous things then others are going to stand up and shout back. If you dont like it then dont do it.




The number of threads started by others ABOUT John are simply amazing> I think its fantastic that he reaches out to so many of you
....

That simply shows that there are an awfull lot of people out there who will accept piecemeal what a minor celebrity will say without questioning it at all.
In my opinion 99% of what Mr Lear says is rubbish, totally unproveable, unverifiable rubbish. That is not taking a poke at Mr lear personally but about what he states on this forum. He is using the reflected glory of his father and his Aviation record as a soapbox to promulgate his fantastic ideas about the Moon, Dulce and other things, and because of that many highly impressionable people believe him.
I dare say he is a personable and likeable sort of chap, as am I

But his ideas are simply that.... his ideas, with no basis in fact or, for the most part ,science.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Zorgon you mention above, or on another thread, about the UFO patent that you found. i was on you're website today and i couldn't find it. do you think you could shoot me a link?


thanks



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chorlton

I am not attacking Mr Lear on a personal level at all, I am attacking what he says and how he says it. He makes statements that are worded carefully to make them sound like fact, yet when challenged he simply points to his sig and says "Thats my opinion". That to me is a very snide way of doing things and as I have stated can have a serious effect on impressionable people.


John says it as he see's it. I don't think he expects everyone to see his way. He's not trying to manipulate anyone IMHO.

And I think you might be insulting many "impressionable" ATS'ers with your comments.




The number of threads started by others ABOUT John are simply amazing> I think its fantastic that he reaches out to so many of you

That simply shows that there are an awfull lot of people out there who will accept piecemeal what a minor celebrity will say without questioning it at all.


I don't think there are a whole lot of examples of this behavior. Most of John's posts are either met by further research, or healthy skepticism (with a few exceptions)

While I respect your skepticism, you might want to come up with something better than "you're full of it". Anyone can do that.

Maybe take some moon pics and point out potentially faulty observations in detail... just a thought.




posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Don't forget the follies of science that have led to this jaded point of view.

All the examples you posted are basically just some people's predictions for the future (not science) that turned out to be wrong. Things change... go figure.

The issue here is people like Lear want you to believe you live in a world that you have no control over and everything you’ve been told is wrong… somebody else (“the man behind the curtain”) is always pulling the strings. In other words he wants you to believe you have no free will unless you substitute his reality for your own…

The Matrix has you.



Originally posted by Chorlton
As I stated Mr Lear has a way of stating things which seem to imply some sort of truth which some could believe ARE true. Yep he always points to his sig when challenged but he isnt always challenged because people cant be bothered.

Don’t forget people who aren’t a member here yet can’t see his signature and if they sign up to challenge him it's only then will they find the disclaimer beneath his posts that it’s only his ‘opinion” and is “intended to promote discussion”… see how that works?



Originally posted by Zorgon

[snip]

Zorgon, I used to believe there would come a day when you would finally realize, given enough rational evidence to the contrary, that you’ve been fooled by your “buddy” John Lear … that it’s all just words from some guy who flew some planes (*), knows absolutely nothing about science, and believes any wild story anybody tells him.

Instead, I’ve watched you spend the last year of your life frantically running around looking for “clues” to support his ridiculous claims when what you really should be doing is demanding HE provide the evidence, not YOU!

I must now admit I was wrong and I find this incredibly amusing. Please continue.

Happy hunting.


AD

[edit to add punch line]

(*) A glorified bus driver.


[edit on 20-7-2007 by Access Denied]



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by VType

Originally posted by Chorlton
Look I dont have any problems with the way most subjects are posted by most people here.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and to put forwards their ideas on things, UFO, the moon etc

Its when they try to imply that those ideas are fact, by the way they word their post.
THATS what worries me.

Oh No. Not another I gotta save everyone from hemselves kinda guy. Geez thats the problem these days. Free thought is so feared by mainstream thinking. Why is that?


Free thought? Fine.
Ridiculous statements of supposition that are stated as fact? No


And for you too presume you are more competent than others who believe other than you do is just so shallow in thinking its hillarious.

Please point me to the post where I stated or presumed I was more competent than others? or is that your 'free thought having 'free reign?
I am merely pointing out that there are many people out there in the world who will believe anything they are told, those people have a right to be told that what is being stated is NOT the truth and is pure supposition/speculation on the part of those who postulate those statemnts


Please dont feel you have to save anyone here Thank You. Many of us are a bit smarter than you give credit for.

I have yet to see that proven, however, using your logic, if there are some of you who are smarter than I give credit for, then conversely it would also be that there are some who are a lot dimmer than they are given credit for?



And your constant cross bearing for proven science act is very tiring.
However I do enjoy your participation other than your krass remarks at levity.


I apologise for your lack of sense of humour sir. I will try harder



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 02:47 AM
link   
John,
Just curious,

In what year did you fly for Bonanza Airlines?

I ask only because most of your resume adds up, but this one is a bit peculiar. (The airlines and aircraft you've mentioned seem to match pretty well, in my research.) But, Bonanza went out of business in '67 and, at that time, I believe you've stated that you were still within the Lear sphere of operations. (Yer own ad/ventures aside, of course.)

There are a lot of people who're out to debunk yer alledged "credentials", so could you reconcile the timeline for us?

It's just, well, that it's a tad bit odd that a search of your name -- with all of your alleged accomplishments -- doesn't come up with much about you other than a bunch of links to conspiracy sites. (I mean, Chuck Yeager's name is alll over the place!!!)

Maybe it's a google flaw and/or fluke. But what really, John, do we have to go on to know that you've actually done anything that you claim to have done?

Please don't take unneccessary offense. I'm just askin'.


So, when was it that you flied for Bonanza?



[edit on 20-7-2007 by Tuning Spork]



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 05:48 AM
link   
Hi

Thanks Zorgon for the pictures of the craters on earth I appreciate your trouble, and later realise my question about the temperature was silly coz if they could go there and build stuff they would be able to to fix the temperature LOL

But I saw this quote on this board from Mr Lear:

Saturn is a fantastic planet full of huge cities, structures, bridges..its really almost impossible to describe its beauty and wonder.

Could you or John or someone, please provide some information on why you believe this? Has someone seen pictures? Has someone spoken to someone who has been there, and if so is this someone elses words or does John have first hand experience from being there? Why is it so hard to describe? and who lives there?

Thanks in anticipation



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Originally posted by Tuning Spork




John,
Just curious,

In what year did you fly for Bonanza Airlines?



1978. I was Chief Pilot. We had a DC-3 and Gulfstream 1. Our route was Las Vegas- Grand Junction-Aspen.


I ask only because most of your resume adds up, but this one is a bit peculiar. (The airlines and aircraft you've mentioned seem to match pretty well, in my research.) But, Bonanza went out of business in '67 and, at that time, I believe you've stated that you were still within the Lear sphere of operations.


The original Bonanza was absorbed by Hughes Air West and then that was absorbed by Northwest, I think.

The Bonanza Airlines I worked for was known in Las Vegas as Bonanza 2. I also worked for Ambassador 2 in 1977 (Boeing 707). The original Ambassador was a little airline that was formed in 1966 to fly from Las Vegas to Los Angeles via Baker, Bartow, Victorville (Apple Valley) and Colton.

The guy who started that airline was Jack Cleveland who didn't have all that much money. It was technically what they used to call a third level airlines operating under FAR Part 135. Jack tried to sell its to Howard Hughes which was essentially a swindle because there was nothing to sell. Hughes then purchased Air West which became Hughes Air West.

Bonanza (2) was also a Part 135. Part 135 was for airlines that operated airplanes under 12,500 pounds gross takeoff weight.



It's just, well, that it's a tad bit odd that a search of your name -- with all of your alleged accomplishments -- doesn't come up with much about you other than a bunch of links to conspiracy sites. (I mean, Chuck Yeager's name is alll over the place!!!)

Maybe it's a google flaw and/or fluke. But what really, John, do we have to go on to know that you've actually done anything that you claim to have done?


I am actually not trying to prove anything but for any particular calim I have made about my career I usually have, I.D.s, log book entries and paperwork. I would be happy to post any specific information you want.


Please don't take unneccessary offense. I'm just askin'.


No offense taken.

Here is my Bonanza Airlines I.D. If this is not sufficient let me know as I believe I have more originals including FAA check ride forms.




posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Originally posted by Has2b



But I saw this quote on this board from Mr Lear:

Saturn is a fantastic planet full of huge cities, structures, bridges..its really almost impossible to describe its beauty and wonder.

Could you or John or someone, please provide some information on why you believe this? Has someone seen pictures? Has someone spoken to someone who has been there, and if so is this someone elses words or does John have first hand experience from being there?



The information comes from Sleeper. No, I don't have any first hand experience.


Why is it so hard to describe?


Apparently because of the amazing and huge structures that cover the planet.


and who lives there?


People like you and me but considerably more advanced both socially and technologically.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 07:24 PM
link   
John, can you tell us from where your ancestors came from in your family tree lineage? I know you have spoken of your father and his successes maybe I missed you talking about from where your family roots started. Rik Riley

[edit on 20-7-2007 by rikriley]



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 01:35 AM
link   
dear john


do you think that life on other planets require water? because i see all these threads about how water was found on ____ and i think well yes humans need water but what about other plantes what if they evolved without water.



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by Clandestino


I was wondering what was the fastest plane you ever flew? and what have been the most G's you ever pulled?

I'm a student pilot and I think its hella cool you flew back in the cold war days.


The F-104 Lockheed Starfighter at Mach 1.7. Never pulled many G's.


Hey John, sorry for not responding right away, I have been busy with summer school..


so you flew one of these at mach 1.7!!



Thats nuts,
I would luv to break the sound barrier some day!

the F-104 was one of the first aircraft designed with the swept forward

wings right? how did it handle? was it hard to land? I would think so, because

those little wings don't produce a lot of lift at slow speeds.

p.s. flight school is getting really expensive, I live in P.R. and I am paying $150 an hour!
do you think that is too much?




top topics



 
39
<< 74  75  76    78  79  80 >>

log in

join