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.

 

inside dulce 5th level blood lab photo

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   
I don't think they realize that they are both on the same side...just different quarters. Both Hank and Johm want the truth to be known. That is clear. It's just hat there are other considerations besides getting information out. If it were just a matter of telling what we know, everything could be layed out in the open without delay, and without any concern, other than sharing what is known with everyone. But there are serious risks involved. People's livelihoods and their very lives are at stake.

[edit on 25-11-2006 by SkyWay]




posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Ok...so people are discouraged with Mr. Lear not providing proof , yet threads like THIS are allowed to exist? A thread where we're basically told that only God can provide the evidence when the day of the rapture comes,or some such nonsense.

My point is there have been quite a few nonsensical threads with no evidence to back them up.As a matter of fact,that has been the majority of what I've seen since sighning up to ATS.The way I always saw it is,if the poster does not provide evidence it's up to YOU to find some,and either prove or disprove it.Isn't that what these forums are for? I agree that it is incredibly frustrating when someone says they have proof,yet won't tell/show it,but at that point isn't it apparent that their position isn't going to change if you keep pushing? Just move on if you don't like it, and do your best to find your own evidence.Then when you find some throw it in their faces with your toungue stuck out.


As for that picture.....I always expected a Top Secret facility to look a little fancier than this! That puts the Dull in Dulce!
Sorry couldn't resist.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 02:47 PM
link   
I can't belive I read all four pages of this "crap".


This thread went from "lets try and compile some evidence", into a "John Lear Bash-A-Thon"


The correct title for this thread ought to be:

"What constitutes as PROOF for the masses?"

IMO, if someone can dream up somthing via the imagination, then in some alternate/parallel universe it *does* exist as a reality.

Yes, that's right...somewhere in a galaxy far, far away...really is/does/has/will exist...

What we need to ascertain here and now (with this topic) is whether or not we have been able to compille enough eye-witness accounts, second hand knowledge, blurry photos and whatnot to "entertain" the idea that Dulce is real.

We are never going to have a 100% proof-positive answer for ANY question--get over it and deal with it people.

Oh, everyone grow up and stop the bickering please--this phoney, pseudo-intelectual ranting about "proof, agenda, dis-info and respect" needs to stop. This isn't why I come to ATS.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by HankMcCoy

Originally posted by johnlear
I did not start the Dulce thread, I just offered what I could. No threat or insult of any kind will be good enough for me to divulge who my informants are what their names are, what their security level was, what they specifically saw, what their addresses are or post copies of their military records. Deal with it. Thanks.


If you aren't part of the disclosure, you are part of the cover-up.

Deal with THAT.


Exactly! If john is NOT willing to bring forth what he knows (1st or 2nd hand), then why is he here? What is his point? Once again, his point is "Im special, and know things you dont. . .(sticking tongue out)" Give me a break. Im not sure how his free pass works here at ats, but I would hope that in light of what he is withholding his membership here should be terminated. Thats crap. . .we are all here trying to decide what the truth is and here you are making us ask you specific questions, which is like throwing darts at a dartboard. .

Thanks John!



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 02:55 PM
link   
The thing is..

johnlear himself said he might give proof if everyone could agree on what that proof is. To me, that indicates that he must feel that he is in possession of a vast amount of evidence about Dulce, if he is ready to deal with every possible outcome.

This isn't a matter of us thinking johnlear is lying about not knowing something, this is about johnlear claiming he has information and then simply stating he wont share it. He opened the bag of worms with this one.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by HankMcCoy
The thing is..

johnlear himself said he might give proof if everyone could agree on what that proof is. To me, that indicates that he must feel that he is in possession of a vast amount of evidence about Dulce, if he is ready to deal with every possible outcome.


The way I see it is that he has some information. Some information is not enough, futile is the word I would use. There is no smoking gun on anything, just doesn't exist, that's his point. Anything can be refuted by someone, and is. It's funny watching though.

When I joined this board, the first thing I did was my signature. "For those that believe, no proof is necessary, for those that don't, none will suffice".

It's true and in the meantime we'll argue about it while all the time, disclosure on this stuff just won't happen unless it's to spin it somewhere else and then we'll argue about that.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Hi, I'm quite new here... I joined recently (as in right now)...

I have one question (that's why I signed up)...is John Lear intelligent? I understand he started a mining business (or some [ordure] like that)... but the whole thing about "I've got proof and I'm not telling" is quite childish.

And using the excuse about "I don't want to put my friends in jeopardy" is quite... lame.

IF all you say is true... then why are you still alive? hmm?

as for 2nd hand info... hmm I use second hand toilet paper... what, did a whole underground base pick-up their [ordure] and leave (or relocated close-by)?

I'm sorry if I offended anyone, but I have a motto... no proof, no truth.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Edited to remove reference to ordure
as well as an insulting question



Please read this thread

[edit on 25/11/06 by masqua]



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by DocGonzo
Ok...so people are discouraged with Mr. Lear not providing proof , yet threads like THIS are allowed to exist?


Two issues are at play here...

#1) Mr. Lear's unfortunate attitude, and to quote my friend Simon Gray's opinion on the matter:

Originally posted by SimonGray
When people ask for evidence, his response is either:

1. This is my opinion, which I know to be true. Accept it!

2. I can't be bothered to spend the time to post anything as it no longer interests me. I'm off to my mine. Accept it!

3. I don't like your tone of voice. I am right. You are being ignorant. Accept it!


#2) The thread you indicated is in our "Skunk Works" forum where we afford conspiracy topics with much more latitude for fantastic speculation than in other forums.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_unraveller
is Johnlear a ####?

We welcome your participation, but not the name-calling. Such activity is not tolerated here.

Thanks.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 03:22 PM
link   
my post of that picture was mearly to get it debunked and now john lear is post banned not my intention at all. so i suggest we got back onto the picture discussion before that happens to anyone else.
plus i dont really want this thread being locked yet becuase of an argument until we have debunked that picture because i thnk its real.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by DocGonzo:
Ok...so people are discouraged with Mr. Lear not providing proof , yet threads like THIS are allowed to exist? A thread where we're basically told that only God can provide the evidence when the day of the rapture comes,or some such nonsense.


If you read through that thread, you'll notice that it comes under the same scrutiny as this one. Actually, it also has a similar outcome; sources and evidence are asked for and ultimately not provided.


Originally posted by DocGonzo:
The way I always saw it is,if the poster does not provide evidence it's up to YOU to find some,and either prove or disprove it.Isn't that what these forums are for?


I strongly and respectfully disagree. If someone makes a claim of any sort, the burden should fall on THEM to back it up. Otherwise, anyone can say absolutely anything they want with no obligation to support their own statement. That's a recipe for disaster in a forum already inundated with this problem.

And now an attempt to get back on topic. I'm positive I've seen that picture on ATS before, but I haven't the will to dig for the thread. Anyway, to me, it's far too low-quality to be conclusive. But I suppose even if it was crystal clear, it could still be a picture of any random science lab or Hollywood set. So basically, it's all up to the imagination. Would anyone else like to talk about the picture with me?



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 03:35 PM
link   
My Tuppence

Courtesy Is Mandatory

I'm a broken record about that because it's true.


Without courtesy, we end up with threads like this one: long on drama, short on substance, and ultimately cheating ourselves and everyone who reads the thread in the process.

Our motto is "Deny Ignorance", not "Insult And Bicker". And yet here we are.

Everyone has bad days, and we're only human (most of us, anyway), but it is still incumbent upon all of us to do our part to support candid, civil and meaningful discussion of the topics which attract us to these forums.

Doing so requires an atmosphere of mutual respect, and anyone -- no matter who they are, what their opinions or what their status may be as members (including staff) -- who is rude or disrespectful to any member of ATS is acting in opposition to the principles upon which our community is founded and operates.

When this happens, it is the duty of the staff to intervene, deal with problem behavior as best we can and promote the resumption of candid, civil and meaningful discussion of the topic.

Drama notwithstanding, that's our goal here, and I for one wish to apologize to everyone who came to this thread expecting more information about Dulce and less information about what some members think of one another.

I'm sorry.


But we'll try to keep the thread on topic going forward, and to do that, I ask that all members who participate in this thread resist the temptation to get personal about all this and focus instead on the question of the alleged Dulce "Blood Lab" photo.

Thanks in advance for your assistance in doing this.


Meanwhile, Back At The Ranch...

Speaking now as a member instead of a moderator, I see no evidence or reason whatsoever to believe the photo featured in the original post has anything to do with the Dulce Facility, aliens or anything of the sort.

That's my opinion, yours may vary, and that's fine, as long as we're nice about it.





Edit to add: Here's a copy of the photo in question as a refresher:



Consider me skeptical.



[edit on 11/25/2006 by Majic]



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Theory is defined as a "statement of possible truth".


A theory is a statement based on evidence. ANything can be a 'statement of possible truth'. A person has a theory when they have examined the evidence, and tried to come up with an explanation for it. Indeed, at that point, all you have is a hypothesis, it deserves to be called a theory when its been repeatedly tested and has stood up to scrutiny. If you have evidence that you aren't sharing, then you certainly don't have a 'theory', conspiracy theory or otherwise.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by DocGonzo
Ok...so people are discouraged with Mr. Lear not providing proof , yet threads like THIS are allowed to exist?


Two issues are at play here...

#1) Mr. Lear's unfortunate attitude, and to quote my friend Simon Gray's opinion on the matter:

Originally posted by SimonGray
When people ask for evidence, his response is either:

1. This is my opinion, which I know to be true. Accept it!

2. I can't be bothered to spend the time to post anything as it no longer interests me. I'm off to my mine. Accept it!

3. I don't like your tone of voice. I am right. You are being ignorant. Accept it!


#2) The thread you indicated is in our "Skunk Works" forum where we afford conspiracy topics with much more latitude for fantastic speculation than in other forums.


Yes,ok,I should say I don't condone or appreciate the disrespectful tone Mr. Lear has taken in this thread.I'm not trying to defend him.I also should say that yes,that thread is in the skunk works section,so it probably wasn't the best example,but there are others like it around that put forth a theory,without evidence,and expect everyone to form there own opinions on it.

I have a huge collection of C2C w/ Art Bell mp3's I burnt off on DVD,and have been listening to when the mood strikes me.Well,like many would,I went straight to the Bob Lazar,and John Lear interviews.In the Lazar one Art says that he has recently interviewed John,and asks if Bob believes in some of the more out there claims that John has made.Lazar,says no he doesn't,much to Art's surprise,and Art asks "Well why is that? You came here claiming something pretty wild,yetyou say his theories are too far out there?" Bob says something like,"Well where is the proof?".This was in 2003.My point is John Lear's theories have gone quite some time without being proven.Why does everyone expect he's going to disclose what he knows today?


Originally posted by DocGonzo:
The way I always saw it is,if the poster does not provide evidence it's up to YOU to find some,and either prove or disprove it.Isn't that what these forums are for?



Originally posted by greatpiinoI strongly and respectfully disagree. If someone makes a claim of any sort, the burden should fall on THEM to back it up. Otherwise, anyone can say absolutely anything they want with no obligation to support their own statement. That's a recipe for disaster in a forum already inundated with this problem.


I understand completely.Indeed,it should be expected of someone who makes an extraordinary claim to provide evidence up front.I agree,but it seems that once you are at a point where they are unwilling,or unable to provide evidence it's up to the rest of us on the forum to prove them wrong or right.Just my opinion.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 03:50 PM
link   
John Lear to Skeptic Overlord.



I don't believe I have received an apology yet from you or your beer swilling friends for that crude and discourteous conduct.


John, i have to say, and your twice my age, surely you know you cant demand respect, without giving it in the first place.
This does not seem a very courteous statement yourself.

I have completely stayed out of your moon pic's thread for a good reason, and one that i thought would surface somehow.
Which it did.
Big statements require more than "just believe me".
Although a theory should be approached speculatively, with such conviction, as you show and claims of evidence, but refusal to show, does not come across well, not to a community that strive for the truth.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by johnlear
Theory is defined as a "statement of possible truth".


A theory is a statement based on evidence. ANything can be a 'statement of possible truth'. A person has a theory when they have examined the evidence, and tried to come up with an explanation for it. Indeed, at that point, all you have is a hypothesis, it deserves to be called a theory when its been repeatedly tested and has stood up to scrutiny. If you have evidence that you aren't sharing, then you certainly don't have a 'theory', conspiracy theory or otherwise.


To add Nygdan.
Maybe that is your opinion.


In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts, in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements that would be true independently of what people think about them.


Not always based on fact....

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 03:55 PM
link   
OK, back on topic.

One thing that strikes me as unusual in that photo, besides its poor quality, is that it looks too crowded with equipment to be a work place.

There is not room enough for the people that were supposed to work in that lab to move between all that equipment.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 04:03 PM
link   
What IS the equipment though? Surely, it can be identified and listed, go from there.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prote
What IS the equipment though? Surely, it can be identified and listed, go from there.


That's what I was thinking....the photo is a bit blurry,and some things are hard to make out because it's black and white,but maybe the equipment could give us a clue as to what this room is intended for.

I don't know.To me there isn't anything in the photo that screams "This is Dulce!",just looks like any old room to me.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Denied
Not always based on fact....

Theory is a word from the sciences. The general public misuses it. When they do, we get things like lear's usage in the above.
Regardless of what definition we use, we still have lear's idea as being unsupported by facts or evidence, and entirely privately held and unshared and inscrutable.


prote
What IS the equipment though? Surely, it can be identified and listed, go from there.

It looks to be little more than poor quality photos of pots and pans. Its not necessarily going to have an identity that indicates a specific function. It seems be very generalized equipment.

The page makes the claim that the photo was taken by a cia officer. Perhaps we have to focus less on whats in the picture, which, isn't much of any use really, and consider the 'provenance' of the picture, where it comes from, who took it, under what conditions, etc. That person, Castello, is claiming that there were hundreds of people being kept as livestock in pens there, and that he wants to do soemthing about it, and yet, all he gives us is a useless photo? THey definitly had better films that you'd think from that picture in 1979. Where is the rest of the roll that that was from anyway?

[edit on 25-11-2006 by Nygdan]

[edit on 25-11-2006 by Nygdan]



new topics




 
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join