Dulce Underground Base Alien War Question

Tim,

i didnt ask for proof, did I?


first of all, sorry for using Timmy, i didnt mean to belittle you but sometimes i think you are a 12 year old when i see your spelling.

second; i think your point is: Dulce and the stories of aliens/multilevel bases are fairytales. I agree. all of this alien mubojumbo seems a little far fetched for my taste, but sometimes its just fun to read.

now:
i didnt bother reading what you wrote in your post, i'm sure its all correct. My point is and has been: quit trying to find facts in other peoples' words. You say youve done extensive research for years. You should know by now that facts are deriven from official documents/sources, not what whatever revalation John Lear, or anyone elso on this forum for that matter, has had today.
Now i understand the catch22 there, because nothing is officially documented..theyre aliens and right now only the French admit that they MIGHT be out there. hence the quest for truth and disclosure is a futile one, unless you indeed go out there and dig a base up.
When drawing a conclusion state it as an oPinion or a question; not a fact. The fact that you use a disclaimer as a signature would seem to coincide with the fact that you write posts without thinking of how you formulate them.

thats all.

ciao,
J

EDITED to clarify/rectify the flatulence situation.


[edit on 26-3-2007 by shadow fax]

Originally posted by shadow fax
Tim,

first of all, sorry for using Timmy, i didnt mean to belittle you but sometimes i think you are a 12 year old when i see your spelling.

I agree with you shadow fax. It doesn't seem as though Tim spends as much time spell checking as he does on the research of the underground levels of Groom Lake. (There are at least 5 levels).

You should know by now that facts are deriven from official documents/sources, not what whatever brainfart John Lear has/had today.
Now i understand the catch22 there, because nothing is officially When drawing a conclusion state it as an oPinion or a question; not a fact.

I also agree with you shadow fax that nothing about Dulce is 'officially' (sic). Therefore when you state '..Whatever brainfart John Lear has/had (sic) today..." I am wondering if you are stating this as an opinion or fact and whether or not you are using "brainfart" as a noun, adjective or adverb? (I know, I know, but I think John Lear IS fast becoming a verb.)

Not that it matters because like 'a breathable atmosphere on the moon' lots of people see my ideas as 'brainfarts'. But the same was said about Giordano Brunos ideas that the earth revolves around the sun. I think the exact wording to the Dominican friary was "Did you guys hear what that brainfart Giorgio said about the earth and the sun at the Pulpit Pub last night?"

Not that I am any Giordano Bruno. It is the principle here I am concerned with. Possibly you could modify this statement to articulate your thoughts in a less vulgar manner. Consider: “Whatever John Lear (whose thoughts I would compare to the digestive bubbles of gas emanating from the floor of the House of Representatives on any given day)…”

You need to know Shadow fax, that when insulting someone, you can influence more people with humor than dated dreary barbs.

Originally posted by johnlear

I also agree with you shadow fax that nothing about Dulce is 'officially' (sic). Therefore when you state '..Whatever brainfart John Lear has/had (sic) today..." I am wondering if you are stating this as an opinion or fact and whether or not you are using "brainfart" as a noun, adjective or adverb? (I know, I know, but I think John Lear IS fast becoming a verb.)

well John,

i wasnt really even referring to you specifically, or RE: this specific subject, but to the ATS postings in general. It just so happens to be a post in your forum RE: a subject youre involved in, so i figured id stay in touch with the thread so as not to get slapped with an 'off-topic' comment. I generally get the feeling there are a lot of people around here looking for a train on which to hitch a ride, so to speak, no matter the direction.

In this specific case though, i would say that "brainfart" was used neither to state fact or opinion, but just a somewhat irritated/cynical attempt at humor. Therefore, i rectified the initial post and it should now better describe my thoughts.

cheers
Jay

Originally posted by johnlear
Not that I am any Giordano Bruno.

Indeed. There is the - somewhat minor, in the eyes of some - difference, that Bruno had lots of scientific evidence (specifically, astronomical observations) to prove his point, while you have ... well ... e.g. a long list of tall tales regarding "Dulce", or a very basic calculation error as the base of your "Moon theory".

No, you are indeed not " any Giordano Bruno."

Regards
yf

Originally posted by yfxxx

Indeed. There is the - somewhat minor, in the eyes of some

- difference, that Bruno had lots of scientific evidence (specifically, astronomical observations) to prove his point, while you have ... well ... e.g. a long list of tall tales regarding "Dulce", or a very basic calculation error as the base of your "Moon theory".

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer

Welcome to the first stage yfxxx, please enjoy your stay.

Originally posted by johnlear
]I agree with you shadow fax. It doesn't seem as though Tim spends as much time spell checking as he does on the research of the underground levels of Groom Lake. (There are at least 5 levels).

John,

Funny, you seem to spend much more time on creative insaults then on checking you facts! It funny that you are fine with making childish comments about others, but the second I siad something to you, that you found disrespectful, You theateded to Run to the Moderator complaining. Just because you didn't imply profane wordage doesn't make what you're saying Respectful!

You should know by now that facts are deriven from official documents/sources, not what whatever brainfart John Lear has/had today.
Now i understand the catch22 there, because nothing is officially When drawing a conclusion state it as an oPinion or a question; not a fact.

John Lear isn't an Official Source. You can't ride on your famous name here Pal! You Published the Dulce Papers, You said so yourself. I think you just tripped on your own lies. Before you even go there, Phil Schnider got his story from you (you even said so).

I also agree with you shadow fax that nothing about Dulce is 'officially' (sic). Therefore when you state '..Whatever brainfart John Lear has/had (sic) today..." I am wondering if you are stating this as an opinion or fact and whether or not you are using "brainfart" as a noun, adjective or adverb? (I know, I know, but I think John Lear IS fast becoming a verb.)

Give it up, John! Dulce is just an Odanary town in New Mexico, NOTHING MORE! You Created the Dulce Story as a quick shot at fame. You created the documents. You told the story to others like Phil Schnider. You spin all these really fantastic sounding stories, and there's nothing to them.

You tried to say this "secret" base was on the Navajo Reservation. When I told you noone there has ever heard of it, you're great answer was: "Maybe they don't trust you enought to tell you".

NEWS FLASH: Here at ATS, we call that a Cheap Shot, not a real answer.

Tim

P.S. Why is it that you Insault people you disagree with, and then you sign your posts "Respectfully"? Are you aware that the word Respectfully has a meaning?

[edit on 3/26/2007 by Ghost01]

Originally posted by Ghost01

John,

John Lear isn't an Official Source. You can't ride on your famous name here Pal! You Published the Dulce Papers, You said so yourself. I think you just tripped on your own lies. Before you even go there, Phil Schnider got his story from you (you even said so).

Give it up, John! Dulce is just an Odanary town in New Mexico, NOTHING MORE! You Created the Dulce Story as a quick shot at fame. You created the documents. You told the story to others like Phil Schnider. You spin all these really fantastic sounding stories, and there's nothing to them.

You tried to say this "secret" base was on the Navajo Reservation. When I told you noone there has ever heard of it, you're great answer was: "Maybe they don't trust you enought to tell you".

NEWS FLASH: Here at ATS, we call that a Cheap Shot, not a real answer.

Tim

P.S. Why is it that you Insault people you disagree with, and then you sign your posts "Respectfully"? Are you aware that the word Respectfully has a meaning?

Thanks Tim, your input is really appreciated on this thread. Please let us know when you have any more to contribute to the Dulce Underground Base Alien War Question.

So does anyone have any evidence of the existence of this base then?

hmmm i read about Dulce and there really isnt too much info on the base.. so i believe i read about 95% of it. But John, was it you who brought all this to the public, or has anyone before you discussed Dulce? Of course the internet is only a little over a decade old in te public domain, so getting this info out to the public would be difficult b4 that, but im curious on where the Dulce story started.

i had to edit this just to ask a question.... do you guys call Ghost01 Timmy because his picture looks like Timmy from South Park?!?!

[edit on 26-3-2007 by hikix]

Originally posted by hikix
hmmm i read about Dulce and there really isnt too much info on the base.. so i believe i read about 95% of it. But John, was it you who brought all this to the public, or has anyone before you discussed Dulce? Of course the internet is only a little over a decade old in te public domain, so getting this info out to the public would be difficult b4 that, but im curious on where the Dulce story started.

I mentioned in another thread, I was the one that published the "Dulce Papers". I made the pen and ink drawings from the originals which were drawn in pencil. The information that I copied from the original papers smuggled out by Thomas Edwin Costello was typewritten on my IBM Executive (the kind with proportional spacing.) Check it out. I stayed with Dr. Bennewitz and his wife at their home overlooking the Manzano Weapons Storage Area (Kirtland AFB) in the fall of 1987 for 2 days. I interviewed Col. Edwards (with Linda Moulton Howe), Gabe Valdez (drove an 8 hour 10pm to 6am shift with him) Jim McCampbell (who tape recorded an interview with Dr. Bennewitz about the Hansen incident) and Bill Moore. Dr. Bennewitz gave me the x-ray of Myrna Hansen's head showing the the chip and the photos he had taken of the dome shaped saucers operating from the MWSA. 2 other government employees confirmed the existence of Dulce one of whom told me he knew it as Section D.

I was the one that originally copied the drawings and information and then sent it to friends. And, no, I didn't make it up. The drawings and text were published in Matrix I which was published by Val Valerian (John Grace).

Originally posted by johnlear
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer

Welcome to the first stage yfxxx, please enjoy your stay.

And every crackpot idea passes through exactly one stage: It is ridiculed.

So I return your "welcome to the first stage", Mr. Lear !

Just for the record: You never even tried to respond to my explanation of your basic error in your "moon gravity calculation". That way, you will not even come close to Schopenhauer's second stage, let alone the third.

And by the way, your Schopenhauer quote and your earlier reference to Giordano Bruno appear to imply that you see yourself as an unrecognized genius equal to great scientists like, say, Copernicus or Galileo. Am I the only one, who thinks this is a bit presumptuous?

Regards
yf

I got the whole story on the Dulce War. Check it out, very amazing. I don't know what to believe. Pretty creative if it's fake.

toddjumper.com...

And by the way, your Schopenhauer quote and your earlier reference to Giordano Bruno appear to imply that you see yourself as an unrecognized genius equal to great scientists like, say, Copernicus or Galileo. Am I the only one, who thinks this is a bit presumptuous?

If John will allow me to speak on his behalf: that is an patently ridiculous inference. I use that Schopenhauer quote all the time. If I were to mention another great scientist in this thread, would that mean that I see myself as an unrecognised genius equal to great scientists like you mention? How does simply mentioning 2 renowned figures in world history equate to a belief that one is on par with them?

Originally posted by TheStev

And by the way, your Schopenhauer quote and your earlier reference to Giordano Bruno appear to imply that you see yourself as an unrecognized genius equal to great scientists like, say, Copernicus or Galileo. Am I the only one, who thinks this is a bit presumptuous?

If John will allow me to speak on his behalf: that is an patently ridiculous inference. I use that Schopenhauer quote all the time. If I were to mention another great scientist in this thread, would that mean that I see myself as an unrecognised genius equal to great scientists like you mention? How does simply mentioning 2 renowned figures in world history equate to a belief that one is on par with them?

Ok, my use of the word "equal" was ambiguous. I meant, that Mr. Lear sees himself equal to some historical persons in the sense that his ideas are ridiculed just as some historical ideas have been ridiculed at first. I agree that he (probably) doesn't see himself as "equal" in terms of geniality.

Anyway, Mr. Lear did not "simply mention 2 renowned figures in world history" - he used the Schopenhauer quote and the Giordano Bruno reference effectively as the only response to my challenges. It actually looked a bit like he thinks that the fact, that some people call his theories ridiculous, is by itself an argument in favour of said theories .

Regards
yf

I meant, that Mr. Lear sees himself equal to some historical persons in the sense that his ideas are ridiculed just as some historical ideas have been ridiculed at first.

But what would be pretentious about that comparison? From Mr Lear's view - these things are true. It is a 'truth' that is currently being ridiculed but which will, hopefully, someday, be accepted as self evident. Whether you believe it to be true or not is moot. For John (and many others) it is true. And it is currently ridiculed. Therefore, Schopenhauer's quote is completely apt and not at all pretentious. Seriously, if you didn't think he was comparing his own mental capacity to the mental capacity of those men then how would you see pretentiousness?

[edit on 27-3-2007 by TheStev]

Originally posted by TheStev

I meant, that Mr. Lear sees himself equal to some historical persons in the sense that his ideas are ridiculed just as some historical ideas have been ridiculed at first.

But what would be pretentious about that comparison? From Mr Lear's view - these things are true. It is a 'truth' that is currently being ridiculed but which will, hopefully, someday, be accepted as self evident. Whether you believe it to be true or not is moot. For John (and many others) it is true. And it is currently ridiculed. Therefore, Schopenhauer's quote is completely apt and not at all pretentious. Seriously, if you didn't think he was comparing his own mental capacity to the mental capacity of those men then how would you see pretentiousness?

Because to me it appears as if Mr. Lear thinks that providing quotes and examples about how valid ideas have been ridiculed in the past is enough to show that his own, currently ridiculed, ideas are valid. I have no problem if he quotes Schopenhauer to accompany his arguments, but not as a stand-alone quote in response to a challenge (re. his "moon theory") I made.

Regards
yf

Originally posted by amfirst
I got the whole story on the Dulce War. Check it out, very amazing. I don't know what to believe. Pretty creative if it's fake.

So is George Lucas's Star Wars! Don't mistake creativity and detail for realism. An even better example is Sir Aurther Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes, it's a set of mystery novels, yet many people erroniously believe that Sherlock Holmes was a real detective, when in fact no detective by that name has ever lived.

It's believeability that is a signature of really good fiction.

Tim

I have only one real question about Mr. Lear's Dulce Story- Why?

Why did you push Dulce as fact and spend so much time trying to fool people into thinking they were real. The Story is Facinating, I admit, when I first saw it, I couldn't put it down.

John, with all dew respect, if you had sold the Dulce Papers as a Science Fiction novel, I really believe you could have made a fortune from it. However, instead of cashing in on your creative talent and adding Famous Novelist to your resume', you decided to lie to the world and try to scam researchers into thinking this was real! Now, instead of being rich and famous as a literary genious, you're loosing people's respect because you lied.

Why John, why?

Tim

This post isn't intended to be an insault to Mr. Lear, but I sincerely hope it gives you a few minutes of reflection!

[edit on 3/27/2007 by Ghost01]

Dear Dew,

I bow to the place where you and I are at one. Much love.

Namaste.

Originally posted by yfxxx
And by the way, your Schopenhauer quote and your earlier reference to Giordano Bruno appear to imply that you see yourself as an unrecognized genius equal to great scientists like, say, Copernicus or Galileo. Am I the only one, who thinks this is a bit presumptuous?

There has always been a very fine line between genius and madness. On which side do you suspect I presume myself to be?

I suspect you would be wrong.