Phil Schnider Debunked! I'm tired of the lies!, page 4

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