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.

 

John Lear. Genuine?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Since john lear has his own thread which we are not aloud to question his extraordinary
claims for fear of being warned or banned. I would like to hear what other ATS members think about this man. While his reputation is in no doubt regarding his
air force career, is what he is saying really true? Is this just another person who gives us amazing stories of the goings on in the solar system, but never actually delivers
any proof?

To me, he does seem genuine who is willing to answer anyones questions.
To others he will probably get put down as a crank with a good imagination.

Opinions?




posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Im convinced he is who he claims to be. I have read most of his threads and came away with the belief that he is an honest guy. He doesnt make outragous claims and he does his best to answer everyone's questions. I do not doubt the man.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 11:56 AM
link   
I think this is a little different.

See John has basically stated that everything is his hypothesis and theories are subject to change as more info comes to him.

This is different then someone who is trying to prove a point and convince others of something.
He has stated that if you need to know, you will find out, if not, no use trying to convince you of anything.

Point is, he is sharing beliefs vs. saying he has documented evidence that he cannot supply, etc.

So not much of a debate really.
I mean you could debate theory, but as far as his credibility, hes not making any claims beyond hypothesis.

Peace

Dalen



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by thesneakiod
Since john lear has his own thread which we are not aloud to question his extraordinaryclaims for fear of being warned or banned.


Really? I think he's been extremely accomodating. He should be treated with the same respect as any other member per the T&C. You should have no fear of a warning or banning as long as you keep civil.


Originally posted by thesneakiod
I would like to hear what other ATS members think about this man.


Although I think he'd be a great guy to sit and talk to for an evening, discussing him personally in a thread is probably not a good idea. I predict drama.


Originally posted by thesneakiod
While his reputation is in no doubt regarding his air force career, is what he is saying really true? Is this just another person who gives us amazing stories of the goings on in the solar system, but never actually delivers any proof?


He's said repeatedly he has no proof. My interest is because he's been close to a number of people, like Bob Lazar, that are close to this topic. He's also been a pilot for the CIA. Now maybe that doesn't have much relevance, but he's been closer to the CIA than anyone I know personally(as far as I know), so has probably had opportunities to obtain information that I'd never have through those contacts, even if they're casual/social.

So, I want to know what he has to say. And he readily admits changing his opinion as new information presents itself. Which is a good thing. To me.

I don't have to agree with all (or any) of what someone says to be interested in hearing it.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 11:58 AM
link   
He never claimed to give us the truth, he simpl tells us what he believes the truth to be, uncesored.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeahright
He's also been a pilot for the CIA. Now maybe that doesn't have much relevance, but he's been closer to the CIA than anyone I know personally(as far as I know), so has probably had opportunities to obtain information that I'd never have through those contacts, even if they're casual/social.


Yeah, we would all like someone from the CIA to pop out and tell us the low down.
The fact is, unless you are the director of the CIA and at the top...you probably have a bit of info of this, and some disinfo to go with the good stuff, and at times, bogus stuff all together.

The likelyhood of someone who knows something like Bush, etc. spilling the beans is...well 0%
(Who knows, maybe hes an alien himself.
)

Infact, Im sure the world leaders are all buddies (including the Iranian dude), and they are playing the duality games to keep us in the dark, and to keep the type of energy thats on the earth, moving the way the need it to. Maybe in the end its for our own good...to make us finally wake up to whats going on and to grow up...perhaps this is truly a "training planet" for souls (if such a thing exist.)

Whats going on exactly...how would I know.


Peace

Dalen

[edit on 23-8-2006 by dAlen]



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by dAlen
I think this is a little different.

See John has basically stated that everything is his hypothesis and theories are subject to change as more info comes to him.

This is different then someone who is trying to prove a point and convince others of something.
He has stated that if you need to know, you will find out, if not, no use trying to convince you of anything.

Point is, he is sharing beliefs vs. saying he has documented evidence that he cannot supply, etc.

So not much of a debate really.
I mean you could debate theory, but as far as his credibility, hes not making any claims beyond hypothesis.

Peace

Dalen


People could argue that he has said that there IS life on mars and saturn. They are
not beliefs in my opion but truths.

Why can't a thread be started on him being authentic? Every other extraordinary
claim that comes on ATS does.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Even if someone did spill the beans on some things, I think you would find that it was neither reassuring nor clarifying.

I think that is part of the problem. Once you apply secrecy in full leverage to international (or extranational?) policy, you have to apply it in ways that are counter to the moral bearing of a straight-and-narrow approach. You keep secrets and so forth to try to reach the best outcome for everyone.

But somewhere along the way, things get twisted, and you never reach the outcome you were reaching for. Then the secrets become part of a power structure in which th e people are divorced from their rightful decision making positions.

Hypothetically, for example, would you capture Osama bin Laden if it meant total war in the Middle East?

Who should make that decision? The citizenry? The military? Some guy in a rand thinktank from Corngrow, Iowa who has never lived in a multiethnic city? The media? What if all of them were playing into the hands of the decision never being made? Of true policy never being set? Of more mud and muck and no purpose?

[edit on 23-8-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Someone else I see who thinks that things people write on a message board is to be taken as truth. Why does it matter? As others have pointed out, he is simply stating the things he believes, where your own boundaries lie is down to you only.

And no, I don't think you can have a thread on another member. We had one on sleeper about a month ago and it got tossed in the trash can.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   
I agree this thread does not seem right, talking about another member is impolite, good or bad.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesneakiodPeople could argue that he has said that there IS life on mars and saturn. They are
not beliefs in my opion but truths.

Why can't a thread be started on him being authentic? Every other extraordinary
claim that comes on ATS does.


After going through several of his post, he has stated there is life on every planet in the solar system...however he said he has not been there, he just believes it.

Again, he is not relying or at least not claiming this is coming from documentation like many others claim. So you can have whatever thread you like, but when its about a persons opinions, Im not sure how you can say its authentic or not...as he does not claim he has proof for any of it.

Hope that helps.

Peace

Dalen



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   
This seems somewhat like a rude post to make. I didn't read the other replies on this thread, as I don't feel it is any of my business to. This would be like making a "is Niteboy82 really from New Orleans" thread or a "is Niteboy82 really that sexy man in those avatars?" Well the latter, I would enjoy taking up in BTS.


Point is, questioning the validity of a claim on ATS is fair game. It is in my opinion something that should be expected to be done. Why make a post questioning the validity of a member though. I have never seen John once declare himself as the ultimate bearer of truth. He makes his points, and he says what he believes to be correct.

It just doesn't seem very nice, and the only reason I think anyone would get a warn in a thread dealing with him is if you attack him personally or derail a thread.

BTW, I am not the man in those avatars if any of you are left wondering.




[edit on 8/23/06 by niteboy82]



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by dAlen

Yeah, we would all like someone from the CIA to pop out and tell us the low down.
The fact is, unless you are the director of the CIA and at the top...you probably have a bit of info of this, and some disinfo to go with the good stuff, and at times, bogus stuff all together.


My point exactly. It's all a shadow chase and we need to take what we can get and attempt to sort it out. Lear has two big things going for him IMHO- he's not an anonymous poster and at least peripherally, he's more connected than I have any hope of being. Okay and a third thing- he's willing to share and interact. No small item there.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Whatever, if people don't want to discuss it then trash it mods.
Its obviously a taboo subject.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 01:01 PM
link   
I think this topic is ok as long as it remains civil, and focuses on informing people about what we believe we know. If it turns into some kind of lynching then it is probably not right. But if it is just criticism or otherwise critical thinking about the "who" in some of the stories out there, well, I think that is fair game in order to deny ignorance.

I think we were .ing in the direction of discussing credentials. That is, who he has stated he is, and so forth. As such information is simply factual, I don't see the problem. Others have rightfully pointed out where he draws the line on his claims. That is important too. I don't think there is anything wrong. Quotes are always good, so as not to mess things up and to not make it into talking behind his 'virtual back'. But seriously, if you are the objective element in a story all over the Internet, how could you possibly be in on every conversation about you?

Its a question of decoupling critical thinking from some kind of public roast. The intents are different and are usually evident.

That doesn't mean we have the right to be uncivil.

[edit on 23-8-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 01:20 PM
link   
By no means am i trying to discredit the guy, i want this thread to be civil too.
What i am trying to get at however, is john lears thread isnt that much different from the
sleeper debate in my opinion. No matter how you put it both are making extraordinary claims, both don't have any proof yet one of them got ridiculed(and eventually banned) because no one knew
who he was, yet the other is respected because he is well known.

If someone says there are planets out there teaming with life, i dont see it as being
impolite to ask how he got that information, or wether its true or not.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Is it socially acceptable to discuss someone's credibility in a public forum? Yes we do it all of the time. There should be no change, we have the freedom of press (lol) and freedom of speech.

The president is questioned daily on talk shows and on blogs, news-sites, and newspapers.

I actually think John Lear would agree, we have the right to question his beliefs.

Now what does need to be done, and it was stated earlier, we must abide by the rules of decorum, and etiquette provided for this discussion board.

So if you are wondering what I personally think of John Lear's beliefs, that's one great imagination there Sonny-Jim.

Would you please Dungeon Master a Dungeons and Dragons game for me John? I bet it will kick arse!!!

-ADHD



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Yeah,I understand your point, sneakoid, and I think it is a good one. Particularly the last part about how people's credibility often depends on their name recognition. Its an entirely irrational trait.

Credibility tied to a name should be based on the credibility of the entity tied to the name, not to its degree of distributed reference.

So that is what we are talking about here, who this character is. Its all good.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 01:42 PM
link   
.
People are desperate for heroes.

They believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny and Superman and Batman etc. when they're kids.

People want to believe their mother and/or father and/or grandfathers, elder brothers, school-teachers, sports-stars, etc. are heroes.

People want a LEADER - a WISE-man .... a GROWN up ... a BIG person: someone who always KNOWS, is always RIGHT, is STRONG, is BRAVE, is UnAFRAID, is INVINCIBLE, has ALL the ANSWERS ------- someone who can LEAD and PROTECT and MAKE it ALL COME OUT OK at the END.

A person doesn't actually have to BE herioc or terribly well INFORMED, in order to be REGARDED as a hero however.

Nope ------ what he needs is a certain amount of charisma, confidence and an outrageous angle or two. Many such people are successful con-men, entrepreneurs, politicians, celebrities. These are the people who manage to sell the Brooklyn Bridge ------ and 'diet' pills --- and 'cancer cures' --- and miraculous breast and penis enlarging equipment.

People WANT to believe. People SELL THEMSELVES on these outlandish claims.

Icke states flatly that shape-shifting reptillians inhabit Buckingham Palace ---- and people abandon common sense in order to believe his claims.

If Icke had been less confident, less emphatic, less colourful (or if he were your brother or next door neighbour) --- he would have been dismissed very swiftly. But Icke possesses a certain charisma --- he's FAMOUS, a CELEBRITY ! He travels the world, stays at prestigious hotels, signs autographs, writes books. So people WANT to believe him, no matter how nonsensical his claims.

Lear is in the same category. He's more accomplished and intelligent than the average sheepie. He's led a colourful, glamorous life, compared with most. He's a known 'name'. So people want to hero-worship him and exempt him from the scepticism and scrutiny accorded other posters in the forums.

People want a guru and Lear is flavour of the month.

Personally, I find Lear to be exceedingly interesting and personable, if such can be deduced from a person's written 'conversational style'.

However, he has a grandchild, about whom he speaks with warmth and concern.

Don't know about the rest of you, but if I were an accomplished, intelligent individual who'd been on the fringes of the 'UFO' fraternity for as many years as has Lear --- and IF I had become aware that a 'soul catcher' existed on the moon for the purpose of 'processing souls' -------- then I would NOT have had ANY children, thus no grandchildren either. For me, it would have been a very definite case of the-buck-stops-here. If I TRULY believed or even HALF believed there existed a carnivorous type soul-catcher on the moon, I would have determined that although it might take me, I'd make sure I didn't produce any children for it to consume.

Another long-time poster in these forums (to whom Lear defered numerous times) claims to be a confidante of alien entities whose agendas, beliefs and attitudes he repeated here in the forums. And those aliens who supposedly 'process' human souls on the moon are clearly NOT enlightened or 'advanced'. In fact, they sound very similar to posters in these forums.

Ok. Let's try knit this together. Supposedly, alien entities (call them whatever you prefer) are harvesting human souls in a contraption on the moon and are JUDGING those souls via very unenlightened criteria, as in 'people who commit suicide are 'wrong' as are murderers and other bad-guys, etc.'. They're unswayed by extenuating circumstance, apparently.

Well, if this is true, it's so abysmally mundane you have a choice between laughing and weeping, depending on your disposition. Because these alleged soul-harvesters clearly have an intelligence level bordering on 90 and seem to have been bypassed by even the most basic understanding of psychology, genetics and most else, apart from Dark Ages philosophies.

So .... sorry. Much as it would be reassuring to discover a guru-leader with even half the answers, for me, Lear isn't 'it' ; personable and enjoyable though he is to listen to.

I'd be more interested in learning from Lear how he intends to prepare his grandson for the future processing of the boy's soul by the semi-idiots who're allegedly based on the moon.

What will Lear tell his grandson, with regard to death? Will he tell him about the soul-catcher? Will he tell his grandson there's no escape from this vale of tears: that he'll be processed and returned, over and over, like a battery chicken?

Will Lear tell his grandson that there IS no loving-god, that Sunday School is a waste of time? Will he explain to his grandson that if he is slammed by a golf-ball sometime in the future, and if that injury causes him to become violent or depressed to the point he takes his own or someone else's life, then the soul-catchers will judge him as 'bad' and toss him into an even worse hell? Will Lear tell his grandson that the mentally deficient man in the street will be judged as 'evil' by the soul-harvesters because he exposes himself to passers-by?

Will Lear APOLOGISE to his grandson for being responsible for putting him on the planet and therefore doomed to be processed by the soul-harvesters?

And WHY would Lear curtail his discussions in the forums in order to collect his grandson from school, when really -- if the soul-catcher theory is true -- what does it MATTER if the boy is collected from school or even if he ATTENDS school? According to the soul-catcher theory, we're just meat on the hoof, awaiting slaughter and processing.

Yes, I'd like a hero. We're ripe for it -- now as always. And heroes have always been manufactured to suit the times, haven't they; Napoleon, Churchill, Geronimo, Che, Castro, Brad Pitt, Bill Gates, on and on.

Wouldn't it be better to be your OWN hero? But to do that, you need to think for yourself, do your own research, grow your own courage, trust yourself --- right? Or, in short, it requires one to grow up and stop looking for someone to do your thinking and fighting for you. Mmmmm.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesneakiod
By no means am i trying to discredit the guy, i want this thread to be civil too.
What i am trying to get at however, is john lears thread isnt that much different from the
sleeper debate in my opinion. No matter how you put it both are making extraordinary claims, both don't have any proof yet one of them got ridiculed(and eventually banned) because no one knew
who he was, yet the other is respected because he is well known.

If someone says there are planets out there teaming with life, i dont see it as being
impolite to ask how he got that information, or wether its true or not.


Neither of them got banned, at least I didn't think so. Sleeper had a massive thread (107 pages) that was eventually closed by a moderator as much by sleepers request as anything else.

The thread we had closed was about sleeper and the only reason I can think of that it was closed was that is was about another member. But I am guessing. It's a shame because it was essentially the same debate as this one and would have answered a lot.

The result of that debate (or my side) was that you should not confuse believing these things so much as considering the possibilities.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join