It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


inside dulce 5th level blood lab photo

page: 10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 06:10 PM
Ok.... it's Bob's list of what Lear's stands are but as you can see, Lazar is not challenging Lear's belief that there's a base under Dulce and this implie's that Lazar also thinks there is one there too!

And you can choose what you want to believe about what Lazar is saying about Dulce.

But I don't know what your credentials or who you are but I do know what Dr. Michael Salla's background is so I'm going to go along with what he's saying and that is that Bob Lazar does have a connection to the Dulce story.
I'm just doing the best I can because there's too much misinformation out there when it comes to anything John Lear and Bob Lazar are saying about any particular subject. lol, that's obvious!
So for this reason, I'm just using that information provided to us by Dr. Michael Salla.

[edit on 7-1-2007 by Palasheea]

posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 06:34 PM
Well I'm certainly not going to go round and round with you, how can you possibly interpret the following as being bob's claims?

The Fantastic Claims Of John Lear
For Lear's appearance, Bob was prepared with a list of fantastic claims Lear had made in the past and wanted to know Lear's current position on them. Lazar challenged only a few items directly and wisely let the rest of Lear's claims stand on their own. Here is Lazar's list and Lear's current position on each item.

Again, this is a list of lears former claims that bob compiled so he could ask lear about them, it's just that simple.

As for correcting me, no you didn't, you backed up your claims with less than credble people.

It doesn't matter to me wether you believe in dulce or not, and I certainly haven't taken you to task over your beliefs.

My only problem was that bob was on your list, it certainly wasn't a personal attack against you, just pointing out that I don't think bob belongs on the list.

You yourself have admitted not finding a quote from bob himself but from people you consider to be reliable.

I don't consider them reliable.

As for my credentials, I never claimed to have any, just claimed to be very familiar with bob and his story.

If you knew anything about me at all, you'd know Im always willing to admit when I'm wrong.

And if you can find a quote from bob himself, in context, that he believes in dulce alien war, I'll be the first to admit I was mistaken.

I haven't asked you to believe anything I've said, as I've supported my points with links and even direct quotes from bob.

You have provided a story by a man that you consider credible, not a quote from bob.

So before you accuse me of twisting your words, I suggest you take a deep breath and reread your sources.

As for my belief in an alien/dulce war, that would be a big no.

Do I believe bob lazar? For the most part I do and I certainly respect George Knapp.

I am a believer in aliens I simply am not a believer in all things alien.

We're all doing the best we can, but you seem to be under the impression that those who disagree with you are somehow out to get you...this is wrong.

So if you want to get real confrontational, fine, we can do that, but I think you may find you get farther with skeptics if you are open to the possibility that you may be mistaken about certain things.


posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 06:42 PM

Originally posted by Palasheea

Ok.... it's Bob's list of what Lear's stands are but as you can see, Lazar is not challenging Lear's belief that there's a base under Dulce and this implie's that Lazar also thinks there is one there too!

Woops you edited while i was a typin'.

As for what it implies, I don't think it implies anything. Be very careful about laying your opinions over an abreviated transcript of bob's radio show.

Bob may not have challenged him for a number of reasons that I think we shouldn't read too much into.


For the simple fact that you feel bob's lack of challenge implies acceptance and I think bob's silence implies that he just didn't want to get into it with John.

There are many threads on here that I don't reply to simply because I feel it's like banging your head against the wall.

It's just as likely bob didn't challenge john because he didn't want to go off on yet another john lear fairy tale.

It's simply an abreivated transcript and we have to take that for what it is, getting ethnocentric certainly doesn't help the situation.

IMO of course


posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 06:48 PM
Oh my goodness!

I'm sorry if I think Dr. Michael Salla in a more credible source than you are about Lazar's stand on Dulce!

I don't know what your credentials are or who you are, but whatever they are you think they are significant so let's just leave it at that. lol

But like I said, I'm going with Salla's viewpoint on this topic because his background is extremely exceptional. As far as I know, your's is not.

And once again, I think you owe me an apology because I spent a good amount of time doing that research for you and once I posted it, you've done nothing but try to insult me and so on..... that's the thanks I get when I was only trying to be helpful!

Michael Salla is about credible as you can get so to say that my sources are not credible is wrong.... waaaay wrong!

Once again, here's what Dr.Michael Salla says on his website ...

External Source

Another whistleblower that revealed evidence of the existence of a joint government-ET base and the ‘Dulce military conflict’ is Bob Lazar. Lazar worked for a few months in 1988 at the S-4 Nevada facility on reverse-engineering the propulsion and power system of ET craft..."

Michael Salla's page on the Dulce case

[edit on 7-1-2007 by Palasheea]

posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 10:11 PM
well this thread should be closed....its just turning into a he said she said battle..and isnt very informative and a waste of reading and a waste of time viewing Quake 2 pictures

posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 10:40 PM

Originally posted by Palasheea
Well, my oh my, this is quite an IMPRESSIVE list here and these individuals are the cream of the crop in Ufology so for those of you who are scoffing that the Dulce material is nothing but hogwash where you are saying that there were not 'credible' witnesses... oh, yea?

Sorry but that list reads like a who's who of disinformation to me.

(with some exceptions maybe like Dolan)

Maybe you should read up on the origin of the Dulce hoax (the "Krill Papers") at this link provided by someone I consider a respectable UFOlogist...

Originally posted by IsaacKoi
Ecker, Don in his article “Freedom of Disinformation, Part 2”, Fortean Times, Issue 122, April 1999 (1999). Relevant article available online at:

( )

Oh and Telos (the one who posted the video game pics) are you by chance any relation to Bill Hamilton who wrote about Telos, an alleged city under Mt. Shasta in Northern California?

posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 10:49 PM
easy big fella, take it easy.

I thanked you in my first and second response for posting the links, and I didn't say anything about dr. sala other than the fact that I personally don't find him very credible.

Which I believe I made clear was my opinion. I don't see how in any way you could attribute this as an attack on you.

As for apologising, I've done nothing that requires an apology. YOu posted links that I took the time to read very carefully what more do you want.

I in turn spent quite some time posting rebuttal bob quotes and links which you decided to dismiss or outright ignore. Do you think you owe me an apology for that? Of course not.

I've been more than civil in my posts and even answered your questions about my credentials in which I state:

by me spiderj from post id: 2863143
As for my credentials, I never claimed to have any, just claimed to be very familiar with bob and his story.

And again, you post salla saying Bob believes dulce. This not a direct bob quote or link, this apparently is good enough for you but it is not for me.

If you continue to take rebuttels personally and make snide, condescending comments you will be treated in kind, if you are civil and respectful you will be treated in that way.

Now again, I will say I have been civil I have not attacked you or your character but you seem to take it that way.

How is my posting that I don't consider dr. salla credible an attack on you?

You believe him, I don't. But in the end you are the one who asserted bob believes in dulce, it is you responsibility to back that up, which in my opinion you haven't done.

This is not an attack on you, I am simply stating that you have not produced anything to sway my opinion.

SHould you care about my opinion? Not really, for I am simply one voice of many, but to dismiss it completely would be about as rude as me dismissing you and your opinions completely, which I have not done.

I simply asked about for clarification about one of the names you listed, a very reasonable request in my opinion.

I think you need to take a deep breath and understand that we're all looking for the real answers here some of us have a different idea on what credible testimony is and isn't.

But again you seem to be taking this very personally, don't.


posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 10:52 PM

Originally posted by Palasheea
Either you are really naive or just plain .... well I'm not going to say it but your arrogance speaks for itself.

And the fact that you can't get through a single post to anyone without making a personal attack speaks for itself. Only those that do not feel their arguments alone are solid resort to such antics.

Each one of the people on that list takes money in exchange for sharing their information on supposed UFO's. I am not getting down on them, its a common practice. If they cant feed their families on the money they make from their chosen profession, that's all the more reason to make up new stories to sell more books.

[edit on 7-1-2007 by HankMcCoy]

posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 11:42 PM
Stop the bickering over who believes in Dulce and who doesn't. You obviously have strong beliefs of your own over whether it exists, so stick to those.

Let's get back on topic about the photos.

As posted previously, the article has been debunked as a bad hoax due to them using screen captures from the video game Quake 2 as 'evidence'. No point continuing the discussion.

posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 12:48 AM

Originally posted by fooffstarr
Stop the bickering over who believes in Dulce and who doesn't. You obviously have strong beliefs of your own over whether it exists, so stick to those.

The validity of sources of information is critical to the argument at hand. We are discussing whether or not pictures of a base are real when that base may or may not even exist, so discussing who propagates the idea of the base, the intentions of those 'disclosing' the base's location and function, and whether or not they can be trusted is really the first step in figuring out if a real analysis of the photo is even worth the effort.

posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 07:39 PM
the photos arnt worth analyzing..a few of them are from a computer game! this thread is a waste of time and its a flame war mods...close this thread?

posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 10:35 PM
ConfederacyOfUnity, I responded to your comments on page 8 and you have fail to reply. All the things you mentioned can easily be faked. Can you think seriously about what would constitute proof?

We already know that some of the pics came from Quake. (mentioned numerous time already) Doesn’t that demonstrate that pics would not serve as proof? (too easily fake)

Now are you capable of thinking seriously? Or are you just going to keep telling the mods how to do their jobs? (twice on this page already)

posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 01:04 PM
quake images is that all it was lol. i guess we still dont have to proof of dulce existing yet but im sure one day we will that is if i actualy exists of course and im pretty certain it dose, i mean its a govenment secret base if it was easy to find and photograph then it wouldnt be very secret.

posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 03:29 PM
It could be a pic from any medical laboratory in the world
or even a factory

[edit on 9-1-2007 by DarkSide]

posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 03:41 PM
I find it both ironic and sad that a website devoted to uncovering conspiracies and mistruths has a following of mostly skeptics and disbelievers.

If I was someone in a position to be "in the know" about any of the ideas discussed in this thread I'd probably be elated by how we as a membership tear ourselves apart even at the slightest mention of something secretive. Why should they worry about their black projects being exposed when the very people who are trying to expose them are too busy with in-fighting and poo-flinging to make some real progress? One shadow of doubt is enough to darken even the brightest light of truth. The court systems demonstrate that idea almost daily.

When I read something I disagree with or conclude to be false, I dismiss it and that's it. Why do some of you feel the need to not only dismiss it, but also try to persuade others to do the same? Like someone said earlier in this thread(maybe JL?), "One man's proof is another man's blurry smudge." If the evidence provided doesn't satisfy you that's your problem. What right do you have to DEMAND more simply because you're unconvinced? Go to the alleged site yourself and do some investigation. John Lear doesn't owe you or the entire human race anything. It's your government that's keeping the truth from you, not a single man.

Also to the mods... good job on running a truth site and silencing one of the very few people who actually know what they're talking about. Never once did John Lear attack or insult anyone in this thread. He may have used a holier-than-thou tone in his posts but if anyone knew even an ounce of what he does, they'd probably post the same way! Nowhere in the user agreement did I find the line "holding back evidence that could support a claim is strictly forbidden"... or did I just not look hard enough?


posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 04:43 PM
i hear you on that one, i tend to agree with things until i can prove they are false or unlessi know for a fact they are false but i tend to just say give reason and leave, the arguing has gotten out of hand and gotten one member scilenced which could easily have been avioded. so we now know that it is faked in some way wether its a quake screenshot or a poorly taken pic of a medical lab its a dud, this dosent nesscierly mean that dulce dosnt exist however, so its still up to everyone wether they believe or not. those who chose to believe, believe those who dont, dont.

posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 05:15 PM
Blueboy, you've made a very good point that there are members here on this board who will not just stop at saying that they are in disagreement about someones opinion or viewpoint on something and LEAVE IT AT THAT ....

In my opinion, the more persistent and the more abusive these people get in those messages they post in response to those comments posted by those they are in disagreement with, the more obvious it is to me that they are in fact questioning THEIR OWN stands and beliefs on those very points of view they are claiming they do not believe in!

And the more louder they get, and the more persistent they get, and the more abusive they get ... the MORE in question they are about THEIR OWN BELIEFS that they claim are the only true and correct ones on whatever the topic is that's being talked about.

As far as my own opinions about the Dulce story, I'm like Switzerland for parts of this story but there are some sections of it that I'm sure I will never believe entirely. And even if all proof in the world was presented to me that there's a lab under Dulce like the one Costello is describing, I still would not believe in it because I would go into a state of denial that I would take with me to my grave -- it's just too horrific for me to to even imagine it. But for those who do believe that that base down there is like that, it's fine with me and I'm not judging them one way or the other if that's what they believe in. But if they are writing books and making money off of this story where they do not have the proof to back up their claims yet are presenting their speculations as if it was the absolute truth, then I will express my opinion that I think that they are wrong in doing that.
The only way I can evaluate THAT situation would be to continue researching on this topic and reading what others are saying about it. But so far, I'm really not seeing enough information for me to believe that this person who was calling himself Costello was telling the truth or not. I know there are those who do believe him but the information that I have so far about this person just seems too waaay out there for me to take what he says seriously and the fact that he just disappeared like that where no one knows if he's alive or dead, well.... hmmmm
But this is just where I'm at now with this. I may change my mind later when I get more information than I have right now on this person, but for now I can't say that this person was telling the truth. Just wondering but does anyone think that maybe he was one of those gov't disinformation agents?
And what about Schneider? Does anyone have information on the actual circumstances surrounding his death? Did he commit suicide or was he murdered? And did he have actual first hand knowledge about the Dulce Base or was all of his information based on second hand information? So many questions and so few answers...

[edit on 9-1-2007 by Palasheea]

posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 06:48 PM

Originally posted by BlueBoy9
When I read something I disagree with or conclude to be false, I dismiss it and that's it. Why do some of you feel the need to not only dismiss it, but also try to persuade others to do the same?

And that is the difference between denying ignorance and merely turning a blind eye to it. Activism. There are those that are here to read, and then there are those that are here to contribute. Right or wrong, those that are putting forth their ideas are the ones that own the right to defend them or challenge the ideas of others.

As for johnlear, he made his own bed with his attitude and behavior in this thread (Calling the owners of the site childish names CAN be considered fairly insulting).

posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 12:44 AM
To HankMcCoy and all those who I insulted and or offended with my ill advised comments I would like to express my sincere apologies.

No, I do not have any iron clad evidence other than hearsay that Dulce exists. No, I don’t have pictures, government documents, sworn testimony or anything else that would support my beliefs.

Please accept my apologies for my uncalled for insinuations that you were ignorant or uniformed.

Those comments were inexcusable. I will not make those kinds of comments or insinuations again.

Thanks for your understanding.

posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 01:13 AM
Mr Lear,

My apologies for going off topic here, but Mr Lear if you would, could I ask a favor of you.

In one interview you mentioned there was a short video going around on the internet of your father giving a seminar or lecture regarding antigravity craft. I have to tried to find it. With all due respect, do you have any current link to it? Your time is appreciated.


top topics

<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in