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.

 

Why The Criticism Of John Lear?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Alright, I had to start this thread because of all the skeptics of John Lear. Maybe it's just me and a few other people, but I have been very interested in alot of things he's had to say on a variety of subjects. Alot of it is "out there", but interesting none the less. He is one of the few people I have followed that didn't have a book or interview to sell. That should say something about him. I know people here are very good at researching certain things and determining the validity of a lot of claims about this kind of stuff (ex. SERPO).

I would also think that adiministrators and moderators would not tolerate "dis-info" around the forum. My point is that nobody has ever discredited him with any concrete evidence. I'll now leave this open to all of the skeptics to make their arguments, and hope that John Lear can alleviate or agree with any claims made from here on out.

If John Lear is offended by this thread or if any moderators disagree with me making this thread, I apologize, i'm just looking for some definitive answers.




posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 12:27 AM
link   
This is my opinion, but from what I've seen, his conclusions can't be "discredited" because they're so far out there he can make it compensate for anything contradictory on the fly.

I wouldn't follow anyone, let alone someone with theories like the above. It's analogous to a religion being used to scare people into joining, because they can't argue something that far out.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by SearchEngine
Alright, I had to start this thread because of all the skeptics of John Lear. Maybe it's just me and a few other people, but I have been very interested in alot of things he's had to say on a variety of subjects. Alot of it is "out there", but interesting none the less. He is one of the few people I have followed that didn't have a book or interview to sell. That should say something about him. I know people here are very good at researching certain things and determining the validity of a lot of claims about this kind of stuff (ex. SERPO).

I would also think that adiministrators and moderators would not tolerate "dis-info" around the forum. My point is that nobody has ever discredited him with any concrete evidence. I'll now leave this open to all of the skeptics to make their arguments, and hope that John Lear can alleviate or agree with any claims made from here on out.


I for one agree! And I have come to really enjoy John Lear posts and all his ideas and theories!! Im glad he has taken the time to come here and help those that want to help themselfs understand more about life, and the universe!
You take the good with the bad, and at the end of the day you make up your own mind! Mr. Lear is well resepcted and has much to offer.. So if you are a person who thinks he is a wacko, then its time to take a good look at yourself, and understand why you might feel this way.. As he is here in my thoughts to help us widen our minds and ask more questions!! If you dont want to agree thats totally kewl with me, but sometimes its best to listen to those with a wider mind than trying to flame, you might learn something.. Either way you learn more, or learn not to listen at all.. its up to you..



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 12:56 AM
link   
I, too, agree SearchEngine.

I have a very out-there thinking process and John's topics have been extremely interesting. I'm always looking for new ideas to put together pieces of a puzzle that fit for me and quite a few things John talks about make sense in the big puzzle that I se.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 01:04 AM
link   
Why shouldn't he be scrutinised? When you make the sort of claims he has, then people have every right to ask questions. And when the claims are hard to discredit as previously stated, overall personal credibility becomes very important. If other posts on ATS (or information external to the site) call into question this credibility, then it calls into question the information that is difficult to discredit. If you are who you say you are, and your bona fides stack up to the test, then I for one find it easier to at least consider the more unlikely posts on here.

I've questioned John in another thread today, and was frankly disappointed with the response and attitude. You can't cherry pick the good posts, while dismissing the bad. For me, his credibility in recent times has come into question. As such, topics such as the moon pictures descend further into the category of highly unlikely, gusting hoax, for me.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 01:19 AM
link   
I understand your point of view, but even if nobody sees anything in these pictures, doesn't this stuff beg to ask questions such as Why do we not have access to the high resolution pictures from the orbiters? Or Why haven't we gone back to the moon in such a long time. Because there is nothing there? I'm sorry, maybe it's just me but that answer is unacceptable considering the tax money spent on these missions. Thats all i'm saying. If anything, these pictures should raise those questions at the very least. I mean, the satelites over Earth can make out a license plate on a car, why not apply that technology to moon images?



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 01:38 AM
link   
SE, in case you're interested... I don't know if you've found this but it has A LOT of John's discussions....

www.greatdreams.com...



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 05:21 AM
link   
His claims about life on Mars and Venus are deeply suspect as well. I think I remember him claiming that there is some kind of hologram over Mars, so that it doesn't look like the cold, dead, lump of rock that it is.
Which begs the question of why would this hologram have been in place for thousands of years, given that ancient Chinese and Babylonian astrologers saw Mars as being, well, red?




posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Access Denied
P.S. I haven’t seen a lot of it here (strangely enough?) but many “believers” criticize people like John Lear for spreading disinformation. They believe disinformation is designed to create a fear of extraterrestrials and the government… sort of like how some people believe religion uses fear to control people with the concepts of sin, hell, the devil etc.


This is an excellent point. If they can no longer control us using religion, this would be a good alternative.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Access Denied

Originally posted by SearchEngine Why do we not have access to the high resolution pictures from the orbiters?

We don't? I'm afraid you've been sadly disinformed...

How about the ESA (Eurpean Space Agency) SMART-1 images...

www.esa.int...

Or the Naval Research Laboratory Clementine images...

www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil...




Did you actually look at the photo's searchengine was referring to? They're about 1000 times higher resolution than anything clementine or smart-1 released to the public. Why do we only get 1km per pixel resolution from these 'modern' satellites when 40 year old photographs have a resolution of 1 meter per pixel or better? Seriously, look at the full size gif images that are the topic of the thread and tell me that the navy or esa photo's compare in any way.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Willard856
Why shouldn't he be scrutinised? When you make the sort of claims he has, then people have every right to ask questions. And when the claims are hard to discredit as previously stated, overall personal credibility becomes very important.


I have never seen Mr Lear state that his views were anything other than the opinion of one man. One man. I can't understand why people are queuing up to rabidly debunk every word that he types. Is it so much to ponder for a second that, you know, we might not know as much of a fraction of what we think we know?

Robert Anton Wilson had it right when he wrote "The world is not run by facts or logic. It is governed by belief systems." It seems to me, what we have here is a case of typical mammalian one-upmanship.

My house is bigger than yours.

My car goes faster than yours.

My belief system is more correct than yours.

All this is, is a big old distasteful pissing contest. Like i used to have with my mates in primary school. You see someone who is renowned, damn, he's a minor celeb, and people all line up to have a crack at knocking him down. It's at times like these, when I wonder how evolved we all really are.

[edit on 4/10/06 by Implosion]



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Why do we only get 1km per pixel resolution from these 'modern' satellites when 40 year old photographs have a resolution of 1 meter per pixel or better? Seriously, look at the full size gif images that are the topic of the thread and tell me that the navy or esa photo's compare in any way.


Wich gifs? The Copernicus crater gifs? or the lick gifs?
ok....lets see, Copernicus crater has a diameter of 107km...this means that the picutres of the "strip mine" would be more than 107 000 pixels in width.
And the lick photos...with the full moon...3476km...that is 3 476 000 pixels...
So...resolutions down to 1 meter per pixel?



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Apass

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Why do we only get 1km per pixel resolution from these 'modern' satellites when 40 year old photographs have a resolution of 1 meter per pixel or better? Seriously, look at the full size gif images that are the topic of the thread and tell me that the navy or esa photo's compare in any way.


Wich gifs? The Copernicus crater gifs? or the lick gifs?
ok....lets see, Copernicus crater has a diameter of 107km...this means that the picutres of the "strip mine" would be more than 107 000 pixels in width.
And the lick photos...with the full moon...3476km...that is 3 476 000 pixels...
So...resolutions down to 1 meter per pixel?




I'm sure he was exagerating slightly to help his point



but take a look at the resolution of the capernicus crater images, 107 000 pixels is not all that far off



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 06:49 AM
link   
Well...It is!
Lets say that the aspect ration of the picture is 2:1, this means the picture is
around 100 000 pixels by 50 000 pixels. This means 5 000 000 000 pixels in that picutre. 5 bilions pixels. Asuming 1 bit / pixel (only black and white, anyway, those picutres aren't far away from this) you'll get a 5 Gbit image or around 625M bytes picture. And only in black and white!!!!
If wou a asume a gif image wich is a 8 bit / pixel format you'll get around 5 Giga bytes of image...
So yes...I may laugh!



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 07:00 AM
link   
I've been wanting to ask this, but never a pertinant thread to do so. I was afraid that a thread of just my question would be seen as a ruse to discredit a poster. This thread will be as close as I get.

Being I was absent from the board for about a year and a half, I have the need to ask tho .............

I see that everything of the ATS John Lear is unquestoined that this person is not a poser. My question is, where is it in the forum that it has been deemed John Lear, of ATS, is John Lear of aviaion?

Just a question for my clarification due to absence, not trying to start smelly stinky stuff, heh.

Thanx

Misfit



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Apass
Well...It is!
Lets say that the aspect ration of the picture is 2:1, this means the picture is
around 100 000 pixels by 50 000 pixels. This means 5 000 000 000 pixels in that picutre. 5 bilions pixels. Asuming 1 bit / pixel (only black and white, anyway, those picutres aren't far away from this) you'll get a 5 Gbit image or around 625M bytes picture. And only in black and white!!!!
If wou a asume a gif image wich is a 8 bit / pixel format you'll get around 5 Giga bytes of image...
So yes...I may laugh!


I know its not 107 000 pixels
you can just look at the damn gif file and see the resolution

i was meaning its not that far out a number in comparison

instead of 1m/pixel its more like 30m/pixel which isnt that big a deal in the whole scheme of things



EDIT: apology for going off topic

[edit on 4/10/06 by lbennie]



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 07:14 AM
link   
What gets me is that this is an alternative web site with alterative subjects. Mr. Lear has not put anything out there that is any more alternative than some of the other topics and just as controversial. If you dont want to believe what he has to say then go to another thread. That is the same with any topic on this board. There is no need for any name calling or personal attacks. If you want to debate someones belief thats fine, but when your arguement runs out leave it alone. If you see that someone else is not going to see things the way that you see them, then agree to disagree and let it alone.

I find Mr. Lears threads interesting. No I am not happy with all his answers or beliefs, but that is his right to have them. Just like your right not to believe him. If you do not like what he has to say then change the channel.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 07:17 AM
link   
Could it be because he CHANGES HIS STORY OVER AND OVER all the while ALWAYS CLIMING HE KNOWS THINGS TO BE FACT?


J - This had to be accomplished by pilots who got instruction - were taken to 'honest-to-God' Boeing 757 simulators which is - you know - the 757 and 767 the same cockpit essentially and you get the same rating and whoever concocted this whole thing knew that on a particular day that airplanes themselves could be switched because of maintenance problems and by selecting airlines that had that airplane, they had everything covered.

A - Huh! So it actually took a fair amount of skill to plow into those buildings?

J - I would say that it took about 200 or 300 hours for each pilot - and we're talking about . . .

A - 200 or 300 hours? But you mean of simulator time?

J - Of simulator time! They had to learn how to step into the cockpit - and that's a whole thing - getting into the airplane, but that's separate from that - they had to get into the cockpit and pull the circuit breaker for the transponder - sit in the pilot seat, disconnect the auto-pilot from the flight management system - turn the airplane, push the throttles all the way forward, find Manhattan - then line up on a pre-planned course - doing 10 miles a minute - they were clocked by air traffic control doing 600 miles an hour at 700 feet above the ground and fly directly into the middle the center of the World Trade Center. Now that - you know and the air races only fly 400 miles an hour and that's difficult - but to fly an airliner like the size of a 757 at 700 feet - I mean that took some skill and that took a long time to train that - probably a year.

A - That's wild (unintelligible)

J - In addition to that - hitting the Trade Center was a feat - but hitting the Pentagon was even more of a feat because when you are going that fast there is a tremendous amount of air creating this lift and as you head towards the ground, that air reacts against the wing and pushes you up, so whoever - whoever hit that - trained to hit the Pentagon at the 3rd story was highly trained because when he came towards the ground - there was a tremendous amount of lift and you would have to trim forward and push with an incredible amount of strength to not be pushed up and over the Pentagon to hit the 3rd story.

A - But what about the plane that went down that didn't make it - that was probably headed towards the Whitehouse?

J - uh - Well that was shot down by an F-16 out of a base south of New York and uh . . .

A - How can you be so sure?

J - Well because there were parts found 5 miles away - uh - because there were eye-witnesses to it being shot down - uh - there is corroborating evidence somebody who was listening to a cell phone conversation at the time this was going on who said they heard the rapid - like the ... described it as a pilot rapidly turning pages - well - that's not what was happening - that was the cannon fire hitting the fuselage and that's what accounted for - what they called the 'smoke ' in the air in the cabin - well that wasn't smoke - that was the depressurization causing the condensation.


I thought they were holograms JOHN!?

You are busted for whatever it is you are trying to do here.

[edit on 4-10-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
Could it be because he CHANGES HIS STORY OVER AND OVER all the while ALWAYS CLIMING HE KNOWS THINGS TO BE FACT?


Stating things as fact is more common than it should be for ATS posts in general, but if someone sticks with the same "story" from the beginning, they're either refusing to think, or else incredibly supergenius to have the whole thing figured out from the start.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
Could it be because he CHANGES HIS STORY OVER AND OVER all the while ALWAYS CLIMING HE KNOWS THINGS TO BE FACT?


Stating things as fact is more common than it should be for ATS posts in general, but if someone sticks with the same "story" from the beginning, they're either refusing to think, or else incredibly supergenius to have the whole thing figured out from the start.


Whatever... John talks like he knows ALL of these big secrets and tells them as UNQUESTIONABLE FACT. Belittling anyone who DARE question him.

How can he change his positon so drastically then without RETRACTING his previous statements?

I used to support this guy, but something is NOT RIGHT...

Is it HOLOGRAMS or PILOTS JOHN?

Your stories do not ADD UP AT ALL.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join