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.

 

Phil Schnider Debunked! I'm tired of the lies!

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 05:16 PM
link   
True. I can't imagine that there is any aircraft based at Groom Lake. Developed yes. John do you know what they have in terms of defense?




posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
True. I can't imagine that there is any aircraft based at Groom Lake. Developed yes. John do you know what they have in terms of defense?



I don't know for sure but year ago I saw some FAA
printed radar tapes of accidental incursions by private
aircraft. And in all cases there was a fighter on his wing
before he got to the 'box'. So I would imagine that
somebody is flying 24/7.

When John Andrews passed away Jim Goodall and I rented a chopper
and flew right to the northern edge of the box and dropped John's ashes.
I got on Groom tower freq. and told them, "Dreamland, Dreamland, this is John Lear and Jim Goodall respectfully dropping the ashes of our friend John Andrews. He should be on the ground in 10 minutes." Of course, Dreamland didn't have anything to say but there was a security Beech 1900 flying around us in circles.

Bob Lazar said that at Papoose Lake there is a battery of surface to air missiles. He said that there was no 'kill' or 'emergency hold' or 'abort' button. If radar sensed anything within a specified area over Papoose the missiles launched automatically.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
No, the F-117A was not based at Groom Lake. It was test flown there but when it became operational it was based at the Tonopah Test Range.

Indeed. I even knew this. I was typing in a hurry, and made a mistake. My bad. But replace "Groom Lake" by "TTR" and my point stands.

Anyway, this only confirms my statement about the "big picture". You go for mini- and micro-details, but the plain existence of an "F-19" in the first place is, so far, not more than a story. Told by someone who also tells other stories, which are demonstrably and utterly false (see my ref. to your Moon "theories").

However, you should avoid too blatant self-contradictions, and decide what you actually want to believe. Even you you choose to live in a completely separate world than others, you should make this world self-consistent. An example from this thread:

Statement 1:

Originally posted by johnlear
I have already stated that the F-19 was very similar to the F-117A in that it used the same engines, same center section , same avionics, [...]
(emphasis by me)

Statement 2:

Originally posted by johnlear
Even the Monogram model I believe to be almost exactly what the real F-19 look like.

Here is a link to a description of the Monogram "F-19" model:
www.ericksmodels.com...

Now, compare this model's center section to that of an F-117A. See? They're not even similar, let alone the same! And by the way, that can also be said about the other major F-19 model design (Testors) - Link.


-----------------------------
To everyone:

Again, I can only wonder why nobody else has pointed out what I mentioned above. The first thing to look out for when evaluating a conspiracy tale is to check for internal inconsistencies, because it's by far the easiest way to shoot holes in it. You don't need any further information other than the claims themselves. Inconsistencies with the external context come next.

And finally, "Occam's Razor" is always good tool. You have a story about a super-secret "F-19" airplane, which absolutely nobody has ever heard of in public (not even in speculative black project articles!), and all original datapoints in the story are provided by a single individual (Mr. John Lear), whose only primary reference appear to be three "witnesses", whose names he of course can't say. Consider two alternatives:
(1) Mr. Lear is privy to top-secret knowledge, which was divulged to him exclusively by three unnamed "friends". Yet, although his "witnesses" were apparently prepared to break security big time, none of them has provided him with any evidence, let alone proof, that the "F-19" actually exists.
(2) Mr. Lear and/or his "witnesses" have entirely made up this story.

Again, nobody appears to have pursued this argument here. And in the light of other stories presented by John Lear, I wonder why anyone would not consider alternative (2) the by far most likely explanation. At least until more tangible evidence than three unidentified "witnesses" is presented.

I don't say that conspiracy theorists shouldn't be listened to. But I say that their beliefs should be rigorously questioned, and not only followed-up with requests for even more (as in "Cool!! Please tell us more!"; OTOH this is sometimes a good method to drag out internal inconsistencies). Otherwise, ATS is just a way to keep up-to-date with the latest crackpot ideas, but it's no research. The saying "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is very true. There appear to be a few people on this forum, who act along this guideline, but when browsing through typical threads, they look like regrettably flimsy matches in a very strong storm.

Regards
yf



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by yfxxx
And finally, "Occam's Razor" is always good tool. You have a story about a super-secret "F-19" airplane, which absolutely nobody has ever heard of in public (not even in speculative black project articles




Thanks for the post yf. I guess that the fact that "nobody has ever heard of in public (not even in speculative black project articles) pretty much settles it.

So I guess my "Venus is a nice place to live" and the "Moon has a breathable atmosphere" are out the window?

Shoot. Next thing I know is you're going to shoot down my "WTC was a holograph" theory.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
So I guess my "Venus is a nice place to live" and the "Moon has a breathable atmosphere" are out the window?


Venus a nice place to live
...

Anyway, these two ideas are not conspiracy theories, they are plain nonsense. There is nothing hidden here. Moon and Venus are within line-of-sight of everyone and their instruments. Everybody can see that the moon has no atmosphere, and everybody can calculate the surface gravity using astronomical observations and Newtonian physics.

Maybe it was just a practical joke by you to see how ridiculous "conspiracy theories" can get until nobody believes them anymore. In fact, I can't come up with another explanation. But if you're a prankster, it's even more astonishing that anybody takes your not-quite-so-easily-refuted claims (e.g. "F-19") so seriously.


Shoot. Next thing I know is you're going to shoot down my "WTC was a holograph" theory.

That's a good one! You can make these things up by the dozen, can't you
? How about "The earth is really a cube and not a sphere, and all images made from space are doctored to cover this up!" ... nah, forget it, I'm not good at this
!

Anyway, one cannot shoot down what never took off


Regards
yf

[edit on 8.2.2007 by yfxxx]



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by yfxxx
Anyway, these two ideas are not conspiracy theories, they are plain nonsense. There is nothing hidden here. Moon and Venus are within line-of-sight of everyone and their instruments. Everybody can see that the moon has no atmosphere, and everybody can calculate the surface gravity using astronomical observations and Newtonian physics.



I'm not sure how you can 'see' there is no atmosphere on the moon. There are many photos of clouds and fog on the moon. Also the work and observations of both Pickering and Kirsoff confirmed an atmosphere.

The following is NASA's own dataset on the Lunar atmosphere:

Lunar Atmosphere
Diurnal temperature range: >100 K to



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 11:15 AM
link   
If singling out one error in hours of videos is considered to be a proper way to 'debunk' Schneider, it's more likely that the accuser is intending to debunk his testimony. There is enough reason to assume Phil Schneider is telling the truth. Not in the least by the way he was made an example of.

As that other crucial witness, Bob Lazar stated, "They're up to all kinds of no good." What covert plans lie ahead of us, I don't know. I suspect they will come in the form of cosmic false flag operations. I'm sure more innocent people will die.









[edit on 8-2-2007 by Thodeph]



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 01:58 PM
link   
How anyone can consider an extremely thin atmosphere consisting mainly of hydrogen and noble gases as "breathable" (for humans, supposedly), is totally beyond me
!


Originally posted by johnlear
As far as using Newtonian physics to determine the surface gravity of the moon it would depend on what you used as the 'neutral point'. There are many references to the 'neutral point' but taking Werner Von Brauns statement that it is 43,495 miles then the surface gravity of the moon works out to be about 65% that of earths.


Is "Extreme BS'ing" a sport
?!

Anyway, just for the record: To calculate lunar surface gravity, you need the Moon's mass (m) and its diameter (d), nothing else. No "neutral point", whatever this is supposed to mean. With m, radius r=d/2 and the gravitational constant G, the gravitational acceleration g on the surface calculates as g = G*m/r² . No further parameters are needed. The mass of the Moon can be easily calculated by observing its motion around the earth, and the diameter can be found through simple measurements (apparent size + absolute distance; the latter to be found e.g. by parallax measurements). And that's it. Period. If you only want the Moon's gravity relative to Earth's, you not even need the constant G; the relative masses and diameters of Earth and Moon are sufficient.


Well, as I can see in which direction this "discussion" is drifting, I'm most likely out of it. As a personal conclusion, I think you are either a prankster, who has a lot of fun at my expense, or you are a complete ... well, how can I say it without waking the PC police ... err ... "logic-challenged individual"
.

Regards
yf



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 11:45 PM
link   
"He claims in hs newest video to have lost his fingures. Look at him and you will see TEN intact finger, five on each hand!"

it would seem to me like you werent paying any attention to him, I just watched a video interview of john lear and he said "Phil was sitting right in front of me and told me his whole story about dulce and i didnt beleive him,i sj houldve gave him more credit he had an incredible story i should have listened to that i regret not doing" (not word for word but the genral idea of the statement)

Can you explain his mysterious death?



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by openmind15
Can you explain his mysterious death?


No I can't! However, in the weeks since I origionally wrote this thread, I've been reevaluating my beliefs, based on what I've been learning from others like you. Phil Schnider's death is one of the things I can't explain.

Knowing what I have learnered, I'm not sure I would have written this thread the way I did.

For the record, Can anyone please explain the idea of an "Underground Island"?

Phil Schnider mentions the "underground island" at Bakeni Attol. People have said that it isn't litteral, but noone has explained what it means.

What is an Underground Island?


Tim



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 10:43 AM
link   
here you go i found the link with a interview with his ex wife explaining what happened to Phil.This is some good info the man was to immobile in his upper body from being shot with that beam weapon by the aliens that took his fingers. this man had a great story to bad he is no longer around.


www.apfn.org...




posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 07:05 PM
link   
The circumstanses surrounding Phil Schnider's death sound more like Murder than suicide. And a starnge one at that.

Wonder who killed this guy!

Tim



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 03:45 AM
link   
this has to be said , there are so many unevidenced "theories" claiming that a mysterious ` them ` murdered Schnider and staged it to look like suicide

try a total volte face :

my counter theory , also unevidenced is that :

Schnider alone , or assisted commited suicide in such a manner to make it appear as if it could have been murder , and a post hoc ` cover up ` and deception committed [ to claim his physical capacity was poor and mental state good etc - when infact the reverse could have been true ]

he allegedly had cancer , what if he knew he was going to die - and attempted to give his death some " meaning "

not a rational act , but is any suicide ? and stranger plots have hatched in the minds of men .



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
my counter theory , also unevidenced is that :
Schnider alone , or assisted commited suicide in such a manner to make it appear as if it could have been murder , and a post hoc ` cover up ` and deception committed [ to claim his physical capacity was poor and mental state good etc - when infact the reverse could have been true



ignorant_ape is not the first to propose this theory but it is a theory I believe to be correct. There are a few details of the scene in which Shneider was found dead which support this theory. I will search around and see if I can find them.



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
my counter theory , also unevidenced is that :
Schnider alone , or assisted commited suicide in such a manner to make it appear as if it could have been murder , and a post hoc ` cover up ` and deception committed [ to claim his physical capacity was poor and mental state good etc - when infact the reverse could have been true



ignorant_ape is not the first to propose this theory but it is a theory I believe to be correct. There are a few details of the scene in which Shneider was found dead which support this theory. I will search around and see if I can find them.



Interesting how Schneider's information is easily being labelled as loony, while the -- outrageous -- claim that he would have taken his life, camouflaging it as an assassination, is believed to be correct.

I repeat, there is simply nothing which indicates Schneider was a maniacal liar who would have voluntarily toured university campuses to produce outirght lunatic fantasies and eventually stage his own death.





[edit on 10-2-2007 by Thodeph]



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 03:55 PM
link   
THODEPH :

you wrote :


Originally posted by Thodeph
If singling out one error in hours of videos is considered to be a proper way to 'debunk' Schneider


in the vids i watched , i did not see a single fact to validate his [ Schneider`s ] claims .


There is enough reason to assume Phil Schneider is telling the truth.


ok , if you beleive in him , please select which you consider to be his 5 " best " claims , and present them as bullet points - and i will give you my honest responses

i wany you to pick the 5 points , then there can be no accusation that i attacked strawmen

i have previously asked questions about Schneider`s claims , and got no answers

here is your chance to shine



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape

he allegedly had cancer , what if he knew he was going to die - and attempted to give his death some " meaning "

not a rational act , but is any suicide ? and stranger plots have hatched in the minds of men .


Good theory, it's obvious that he was hungry for attention while alive. Maybe he hoped to find the fame he sought in death. Certainly makes more sense than any of the half baked nonsense I've witnessed him espouse.



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Gee Wizz!

When I first started this thread, I got Hammered for suggesting that Phil Schnider wasn't telling the truth, and now he's the center of a massive Conspiracy Theory concerning the spread of disinformation. Just wondering, Why do I have to play the villin of ATS before anyone else realizes these stories have flaws in their most basic logic?

Gee, the "Deny Ignorance" crowd sure takes a while to warm up! Hell, better Late than Never.


Tim



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Debunkers, by default, try to depict whistleblowers with strong claims as a bunch of fantasizing liars. Usually, though, people don't go out wasting time and energy making up hysterical stories.

Schnieder's experience fits with the research done on the existence of subterranean zones. People must have built those underground bases and tunnels. He says he's a geologist who did just that, and he's probably the only one who had the idealism to come out with info as to why these spaces were dug in the first place. Although his testimony is admittedly stunning, there's unfortunately no indication that he's making it up.

Other research indicates how these projects (DUMB - Deep Underground Military Bases) indeed connect with the issue of extraterrestrial visitations.

Phil Scheider isn't the only one to come forward with incredible info and is found murdered as a result. Other heavy whistleblowers such as Dr. Michael Wolf and colonel Steve Wilson aren't around anymore either, although their assassinations were better disguised. These people's unfortunate deaths make them more credible, not less.

[edit on 11-2-2007 by Thodeph]



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Ghost01-

You pulled a total 180 regarding Phil Schneider. What have you discovered that leads you to beleive his claims? If you were playing devil's advocate, that is fine, but please have respect towards the dead. Also I dont think he commited suicide or was assisted and staged as a murdur, what would be the point? If you think that Scheider was in it for the money, you are sadly mistaken. It was true that he did sell samples and specimins, but on his videos you can see he never makes more than 50 bucks at his speeches from selling his materials. Also explain how he sustained injuries(Dulce War). Other than a car accident or being napalmed, there is no way one could fake those injuries. And dont tell me that they were self inflicted.

People have died exposing these bases. There is probably a reason.

[edit on 11-2-2007 by Lightman9202]



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join