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: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 09:03 AM
link   
600 million on Mars! So is the mars rovers not really there or is the population underground?




posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by thesneakiod
Yet im constantly being berated for the questioning of a member(which
thats all he is by the way) who says some quite outlandish claims but then offers no
proof or evidence


You are being berated because it has been stated countless times throughout this thread and ALL John Lear Threads...HE HAS NO PROOF


Im sorry, but that doesnt cut it for me

Then don't read/believe anything he says..very simple.


and shouldnt for anyone else on this site.

Everyone else on here seems to understand and have accepted the fact that he indeed has no proof and just gives he opinions



Especially for the implications and change that would engulf mankind if they were true.

LOL Most of "mankind" would not believe any of this unless it was on FOX News


[edit on 8/25/2006 by pstiffy]



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 09:28 AM
link   
That was a pointless post pstiffy, your basically saying i shouldnt have an opinion, that
should sit there with a silly grin on my face and not have any views what so ever.

You may well believe what he says and thats fine, but i want more, i want more than
to just trust this man outright because he comes across as friendly, or he writes
articulate posts or because he conjures up great images in the mind, and then says
"Er.. i can't actually prove any of this and i don't care if your a little bit grieved that i
can't".

Most people here may accept that. Just because i dont, it doesn't mean i deserve
the a post like that from you.(which is most of the posts in this thread).



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by thesneakiod
That was a pointless post pstiffy, your basically saying i shouldnt have an opinion, that
should sit there with a silly grin on my face and not have any views what so ever.

Lol..you have EVERY right to have an opinion. But, seriously, your questions have been answered COUNTLESS times. The guy has no proof. He never will.



You may well believe what he says and thats fine, but i want more, i want more than
to just trust this man outright because he comes across as friendly, or he writes
articulate posts or because he conjures up great images in the mind, and then says
"Er.. i can't actually prove any of this and i don't care if your a little bit grieved that i
can't".


I don't believe what he says is true. I believe he believes its true and it was information given to him.



Most people here may accept that. Just because i dont, it doesn't mean i deserve
the a post like that from you.(which is most of the posts in this thread).


It has been stated so many times throughout the thread. I tried in earlier posts to show you where to go to try and find background info, but I really don't understand what you want from him?


[edit on 8/25/2006 by pstiffy]



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 09:43 AM
link   
thesneakiod

This is not the learbot you are looking for...
you have no need to stop here...
continue on...

(jedi powers off)

seriously... catch up with the situation here... John lear doesn't have the proof for answers, he has leads to speculate on only...

in that effect, he is unique on this board... but as stated... it was the Board that accepted the terms of his answers, because we wanted to hear his stories...

and whether you believe them or not shouldn't be the reason to partake in these dicussions, because you will not find the proof you look for, but merely more questions.

Haven't you ever had a friend that had some connections to people in the know, and could tell you everything he knew, but without anything other than his word as proof?
didn't you still want to know?
regardless of what pictures they could pull up to prove it?
that is the spirit of johns threads...

And kudos for your skeptical attitude... normally that would be exactly what makes a good ATSer... but the board in general has accepted that the normal form isn't practical if we want to hear what Johns version "of the world as we know it" is...

hope that helps... and continue to question John on his thread if you want... he has been as accomodating as possible to answer ATSers questions... but dont be surprised if the true answers you are seeking are still lacking...



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by thesneakiod
That was a pointless post pstiffy, your basically saying i shouldnt have an opinion, that
should sit there with a silly grin on my face and not have any views what so ever.


Your opinion appears to be based on erroneous information. Not once has the poster in question EVER stated that which he shares with us as unquestionable fact. It is not being offered as absolute truth. I seriously think you are doing the membership a disservice. Do you really think that everybody who comes across the information Mr Lear decides to share with us lacks the ability to make up their own minds? Who is stating that all he says is true? Where are Mr Lear's unquestioning disciples? I don't see them. I think this thread is based upon a whole load of assumption on your part, and very little by way of reality.

The man is sharing his personal belief system [bs]. He is telling us what he believes, and why he believes it. It's up to you to make up your own mind. He is not The Pied Piper, he is not Jesus. He is a man sharing ideas and information, and should be allowed to continue to do so without others trying to jump on the bandwagon to stir up a drama.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Fine, no one got the point i was making.

Can you close the thread please mods.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Implosion
Not once has the poster in question EVER stated that which he shares with us as unquestionable fact. It is not being offered as absolute truth.


Not a totally accurate statement.


Originally posted by johnlear
Whether or not it is a 'soul collector' is purely conjecture. That it towers about 6 miles above the lunar surface is photographic and scientific fact. emphasis added by MrPenny thread



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Whether or not it is a 'soul collector' is purely conjecture. That it towers about 6 miles above the lunar surface is photographic and scientific fact. emphasis added by MrPenny thread



The picture of that "structure" is available on the Internet for all to see. The purpose it fulfills is, as stated by Mr Lear himself in your quote, open to conjecture. Perhaps you know of proof that the 'soul collector' [for want of a better title] in question is actually not real? Proof that there is in fact no such structure towering 6 miles above the surface of the moon. I for one, would love to see it.



To the left of the shard, a faint anomaly was photographed. After printing the negative over and over again at different exposure levels, and analysing the results with various computer imaging processes, the anomaly was found to be a massive "tower/cube" hanging more than seven miles above the Moon! [A large version of the Megacube] Note the highly reflective "debris" surrounding this structure seemingly embedded in a darker material. This looks very much like reflective crystalline material being held miles above the lunar surface by a framework or matrix of "rebar" (reinforcing bars).

Megacube.

Source.


Please note once more. The source for this information is not John Lear. As far as I can make out, only the theory that it may serve as a 'soul collector' is his.

[edit on 25/8/06 by Implosion]



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 04:36 PM
link   
For crying out loud. There are some stunningly obtuse posters on the Internet. My point was to refute the statement that Mr. Lear never stated anything as being fact. My example does so.

It is not, nor has it been, a scientific fact that a 6 mile high tower stands on the moon.

Your demand that I disprove the existence of an object whose existence has not been proven, is the cheapest form of discourse possible. You in fact, have not even used the photo that Mr. Lear refers to as "the tower".

In summary; you posted that Mr. Lear never stated anything as fact, when he did in fact claim as scientific fact the existence of a 6 mile high tower on the moon.

Is that clearer now?



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrPenny
Your demand that I disprove the existence of an object whose existence has not been proven, is the cheapest form of discourse possible. You in fact, have not even used the photo that Mr. Lear refers to as "the tower".


Not the same photo? That would lead me to believe that there is more than one image of the structure in question [the one that doesn't exist]. Remember, John Lear is not the source of the information regarding the object in question. He is sharing an opinion as to what might be the purpose of said object, whether it exists or not. Obviously, if you want to listen to Mr Lear's opinion on the subject, then your acceptance of the possibility of that thing actually existing is implicit. It is not John Lear's fault if the photo turns out to not be genuine, he is merely expressing an opinion if it exists, on what it could be used for.

For Christ's sake. I think it's a little obtuse of yourself to trawl through the threads in which Mr Lear has participated in to find an example to prove me wrong. One which on closer inspection falls to pieces, then to have a tantrum and start name calling. It's quite pathetic.

He's just a man, like you or me, trying to share ideas about the nature of reality, none of his personal beliefs are held up to be an absolute truth

Is that easy enough for you to understand?

[edit on 25/8/06 by Implosion]



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Sure, whatever you say.

I'll defer to the expert.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Chill, people...John Lear is away for now and this portion of the debate without him is moot. Let's allow him to at least have a chance to answer next week when he returns.

There is also no need to use either strong language or sarcasm towards each other.

MrPenny has shown that John Lear stated that tower was a 'scientific fact'. To make this stick, proof that the tower does not exist in scientific fact now falls to MrPenny.

If it is an opinion that the tower does not exist, then it is no more effectual a stance than John Lear saying it does.

Emotion need not enter into this debate, for Lug's sake.




posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 08:07 PM
link   
O.K., right off the bat; I like John Lear. Mr. Lear recommends a beautiful lifestyle of loving your family, treating your acquaintances well, loving others, etc. Unarguably, a fine way to handle life. I'm not so sold on the rest of his message.

Second item; who is Lug?


Originally posted by masqua
proof that the tower does not exist in scientific fact

How many peer-reviewed, scientific papers, treatises, and publications do I need to review before concluding the "non-existence" of any object? How about if I use as subject authorities the following websites;

    mufor.org
    global-conspiracies.com
    unexplainable.net
    pravda.ru
    virtuallystrange.net
    crystalinks.com
    astralvoyage.com

Poor choices at best, as they have appear to have a bias.

I'm not a neophyte at conducting Internet searches. There is no concrete, sober, serious, and peer-reviewed research that says, "There are no artificial structures on the moon.". There are also none that state, "There are artifical structures on the moon". (Might be a reason for that; may be that the scientific community considers it a non-issue).

Therefore, I am forced to admit, there may be a 6 mile high tower on the moon. Concurrently, there is no scientifically factual evidence for the existence of such a structure. My position stands. Mr. Lear stated as fact, a position that cannot be supported with current science.

Thank you.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrPennyMr. Lear stated as fact, a position that cannot be supported with current science.


Fantastic, never mind that you are arguing something completely beside the point. What is in question in this thread is not the existence of a tower, but the validity of the belief system [bs] that Mr Lear is sharing. I don't want to talk for the man, however, I have followed the threads in which he is a participant with great interest, and it's obvious that the photos of the cube are available from NASA. Now, off the top of my head, I can't remember the number of the photo, but I'm sure Mr Lear can sort you out. If you can get a picture of it from NASA, then that's accepted enough for me, ok?

You see, the pictures of the tower on the moon were probably on the Internet long before Mr Lear, and will be for a long time afterwards. Many people believe it is there, that it is real. Once again, all this guy has done is speculate as to its purpose. It is the belief system [bs] that is in question here, and weather it is being held up as absolute fact, or as something one guy believes. It's obvious to me, that you've trawled through the thread, just looking for something that would give you an opportunity to knock someone down. Someone who has most likely accomplished more in one lifetime, than you will in three. never mind, if that's the way you are, good luck to you, however, let's have a look at the original post once more shall we?


Originally posted by thesneakiod
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?.


The tower is not in question, the tower is out there, you can get a picture of it from NASA. The claim that this anomalous structure on the moon does not originate from Mr Lear. Is that clear enough yet? I don't see Mr Lear getting any preferential treatment, Many people on ATS hold beliefs which are beyond the pale, they are not subject to such scrutiny, why should he be?

Anyway, congratulations, in a tremendous display of pedantry, you've managed to conclude that there may or may not be a big old soul collecting cube on the surface of the moon. Give yourself a pat on the back.



[edit on 26/8/06 by Implosion]



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Wow, O.K. Back to the original idea....I give. You're absolutely right.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 11:17 PM
link   
A lot of idiots get banned in the end for exploding onto the scene with some tall tale that it's quite obvious they have a lot of time on their hands and would be better-served pursuing a career as science-fiction writers. It's almost a slap in the face to the intelligent people who come here for well-reasoned, mature discussion.

I don't know why some have a problem with John posting here. I for one think he's excellent value. Do I believe everything? Well no, and it's healthy and natural to feel like that. But heck, much of what he says rings true and gels with everything I've absorbed. As far as puzzle pieces go (and let's face it, ufology is a minefield of puzzle pieces because so much is kept from us), John's input is invaluable. I would like to ask the naysayers in this thread, whom if anyone in the UFO field they actually consider "genuine". If your answer is "nobody", well there you go. Stop singling John out. You're obviously not going to believe a grain of it unless a little green man lands on your front lawn with a Fox cameraman on hand to capture it. If this is how you feel, please let it go.

ATS members are big enough to make up their own minds as to if we are being misled. He is not treated differently to anyone else on here. I'd like to think all members are given the benefit of the doubt, regardless of their background. If they dig their own grave, they bring it upon themselves. John's contributions have been insightful and a delight to read.

Totally different to the so-called "new members" that start threads along the lines of "I am a Zeta Reticulan.. ask me anything you bunch of woo-woo believe-anything punks" and wonder why they get banned.



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 02:07 AM
link   
I beg to differ, I have seen him do nothing to violate the T&C. If you could see a place please feel free to quote him..

And yes, Many different mods have indeed verified that this is the one and only John Lear.



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 03:39 AM
link   
I think perhaps some of us are still missing the point.

It has been stated that if John Lear was a "nobody" that his words would amount to nothing more than a "tall tale" and would have had him banned due to the apparent lack of proof to substantiate his story. Basically its implied that he is given special status.

I would say on the surface it may appear that way, until you actually take time to read thoroughly what has been posted by John.

The main thing that differentiates his postings, is the very fact that he is not relying on some "bogus" documentation/proof, but insist that this is just his belief...as he sees and understands things now.

Posting your opinion wont get you banned from ATS, but purposefully lieing/deceiving will.
As of now John has been responding to questions posted to him by readers about what he believes, not trying to sell a tale to get a following.

This appears to be the main difference...that more people, perhaps, are asking him questions then they would other ATS members. This in itself could help the perception of him having special treatment.

I for one, am amazed of how many postings have fallen under this topic, as its hard to debate ones "authenticity" when its clearly stated that he has only shared his personal beliefs.
So the fact that so many opinions have been shared on this topic alone, shows that noone is receiving special treatment, and all are welcome to share their opinion.

Hope this helps.

Peace

Dalen

edit: Instead debating his authenticity (he believes what he believes) you can debate the content of what is said. (difference as both parties share opinions, allowing/respecting the others right to the opinion, and perhaps explore possibilities in debunking the idea or proving it...if possible.


[edit on 26-8-2006 by dAlen]



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 04:59 AM
link   
tbh i am much more interested in his more earthly experiences flying covert missions... spicy!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join