Is John Lear Spreading Disinfo?

page: 2
26
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 05:50 PM
link   
I really enjoy the different views on this site, it depends on your prospective , what lead you to this place , and what your true interests are as to what you believe or not.The first time I heard John I got a gut instinct that he was spot on. Over the next several years I still think so. Keep it up John!




posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
I don't agree with everything that John Lear espouses - like the soul tower on the moon idea - which he may no longer accept.


Originally posted by johnlear
Thanks for the post Paul_Richard.

You are quite welcome and are obviously a very patient and polite person, especially with all the slings and arrows directed towards you in ATS. Then again, I get the impression that you are a man of monetary means. Not saying that you laugh all the way to the bank (maybe you do) but living comfortably does provide a substantial buffer or cushion when being in the hot seat of criticism.

Maybe that's my problem with patience when I go through that in here. I am simply not affluent enough. Oh well.


Originally posted by johnlear
I'm not sure where you got that idea but I am firmly convinced that the 6 mile high tower that sits in the Sinus Medii, very near Mosting A transmits and receives souls to and from earth. Now whether or not ALL souls get transmitted or sent from there I don't know. But some of them do.

So I was pretty close in my understanding of your stance. You say that it is a six mile high tower on the Moon and that it receives some but not all souls to and from this world.

Hmmm.

Could you give us some info, reference, cogent argument, etc., as to why you have come to that conclusion?

This is a big issue with ATS-ers who try to learn from what you post. Much like the "shape-shifting Reptilians in high levels of government theory" that David Icke espouses, this issue about an alien tower on the Moon that receives discarnates is the one thing that appears to threaten your credibility the most as a governmental insider and ufologist.

In light of this, perhaps you can elaborate on your perspective on this heated issue. What has made you firmly convinced?

Thanks.




posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 06:41 PM
link   
www.putfile.com...
here is my own "layer" findings in Lear's Copernicus image.

(edit, i posted this in the moon pics before, keep in mind he has the negatives, but i still believe they may have been smudged a bit.)

Mr.Lear seems compassionate enough, though I suppose that could also make him look like he is spreading disinfo. Somebody said that Lazar said he may embellish things a bit. Who knows. I like the moon pics though.

edit: you know, i think sometimes he has harsh responses to his non-believers, or people that give him objective resonses. He would prolly be better off ignoring such people for the sake of credibility. I do like him though.



[edit on 28-4-2007 by jetflock]

[edit on 28-4-2007 by jetflock]



posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Bob lazar has said this guy likes to add about 10% to a story if it goes through him once, 30% if it goes through him 2x and so on.

I got a U2U from Mr. lear saying " who do you think you are redseal, its not up to you what threads get closed or not" I U2U'd him back saying I had no idea what he was talking about, never got a response back though.

He is 75+ yrs old though, just some food for thought!



posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Only "disinformation" agents I know of at ATS, are all those fools who can't seem to see possibilities outside their own sense of reality. Because they are the ones encouraging and promoting an absolutely boring world, with no change. The sad thing is, theres so many of them here.


If only the likes of Einstein was still here, today...



posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by redseal
I got a U2U from Mr. lear saying " who do you think you are redseal, its not up to you what threads get closed or not" I U2U'd him back saying I had no idea what he was talking about, never got a response back though.


That is weird. I also find it odd that someone would feel the need to U2U someone to berate them. Why not man-up and do it on the boards. I think that John likes to put on a nice public image but gets pissed when you challenge him on his ideas. Never rub another mans rhubarb. You mess with a mans $$ and you might as well be messing with his woman. He seems to be a bit arrogant and self centered, and I don't see how knowing these truths he claims to know could still allow someone to derive pleasure from messing with others. I would think that possesing knowledge of such truths would almost force you into a slightly more spritual outlook on life, at it did for me and almost everone else I have talked with who have seen UFO's. Sorry, but simple logic points me in that direction. It would also explain his "attitude" he apparently doesn't really care about others and seems to derive pleasure in "ruining someone else's day", maybe I took that out of context but I do not see how. I think that he does a disservice to the UFO community by making outrageous claims knowing full well that they cannot be confirmed or debunked. I don't personally know the man so everything I have just posted is purely speculative, but I tend to trust my instinct and to my instinct tells me that Mr. Lear has taken an inch and stretched into a mile. Just my opinion. Please no hateful U2U's Mr. Lear, you can find me right here on the boards



posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
"disinfo" maybe...

I personally just think hes a complete hoax.

But that is of course my opinion.


But he has shown no scientific evidence at all, and many of his claims (soul tower collector thingy?
) are completely "out there" .. I think if he was any other member, he would a been banned for hoaxing.


Have to agree with this one. Of course, saying anything against Lear is taboo on these forums tho no matter what the guy says, a little celebrity goes a long way here it seems. The guy has endorsed some of the most ridiculous theories I've ever seen and given support to guys that anyone who actually does their research can tell is a fraud (for example he says Billy Meier is the "Real deal", a guy who has been debunked more times then I care to count and who has changed his stories many times IE: The trashbin UFO which he then claimed that the trashcan company stole the UFO blueprints to make their trashcans... lol).

Of course it doesn't surprise me that he makes all these claims and endorses all these crazy theories... the more people he can con into believing the most ridiculous of claims, the more people will buy into whatever fantasy he comes up with next and the more money he'll make from his lectures, interviews, writings etc

Its rather funny how the mods and everyone else will come out in force to punish you for critiqueing John, but they'll be the first ones to ban other hoaxers who make similiarly ludicrus claims wihtout evidence but dont have a famous name. fin.

[edit on 28-4-2007 by nybaseball44]



posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 09:10 PM
link   
As an example....

The tower being a soul collector is not the thing to focus on so why is it that a person attacks the less important provable part of a theory? What the towers' function is, is irrelevant.

The fact remains that John is saying there are buildings and towers on the moon. These are the provable elements yet there are more taking a cheap shot than there are trying to disprove that these physical constructions are not there. Why?

It's easy to attack and not so easy to prove/disprove these theories and NONE of us can categorically KNOW that ther ISN'T such constructions in existence, unless you believe NASA, which I don't. So John can spout his stuff all day long as far as I'm concerned.



posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prote
As an example....

The tower being a soul collector is not the thing to focus on so why is it that a person attacks the less important provable part of a theory?


Not to sound harsh but please show me proof of such a tower. And not some image from 9 miles away. You claim to have proof so please present.



What the towers' function is, is irrelevant.


It is when the claim being made about the relevence of a soul collecting tower is the latter of a two-part claim, the first being in direct correlation to the second. So if I totally disbelieve the latter of ones claim based on the assumption of lies, I should take the first part at face value because you are convinced that such a tower exists in the first place?


Itremains that John is saying there are buildings and towers on the moon. These are the provable elements yet there are more taking a cheap shot than there are trying to disprove that these physical constructions are not there. Why?




Because this has not been proven. Just because you believe something to be true, doesn't make it true. I personally believe that there are structures on the moon that were not created by humans as we understand, but I do not have proof, only intuition. Please understand that I am not trying to be harsh but I do not discriminate when it comes to debating. If I thought that my own mother was wrong, I would call her out on the spot. Nothing personal.




Its easy to attack and not so easy to prove/disprove these theories and NONE of us can categorically KNOW that ther ISN'T such constructions in existence, unless you believe NASA, which I don't. So John can spout his stuff all day long as far as I'm concerned.


Now I'm confused I thought these were provable claims?
You have just contradicted yourself in one post I need another Hefeweisen


[edit on 28-4-2007 by kleverone]



posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by kleverone

Originally posted by Prote
As an example....

The tower being a soul collector is not the thing to focus on so why is it that a person attacks the less important provable part of a theory?


Not to sound harsh but please show me proof of such a tower. And not some image from 9 miles away. You claim to have proof so please present.

Oh I see the error. Yes that should have said "attack the less important unprovable part of the theory" i.e. the towers function as a soul collector rather than the tower existing in the first place.

Besides, saying something is provable is not claim I have proof. Thanks for the attitude though. I'm not claiming to have proof, I'm saying that if there is a physical construct, that is provable or disprovable, the towers purpose should be the focus after we establish whether or not there is indeed a tower.



What the towers' function is, is irrelevant.


It is when the claim being made about the relevence of a soul collecting tower is the latter of a two-part claim, the first being in direct correlation to the first.

If you want to think that way, that's your perogative, don't get uptight about it. For me, the latter is irrelevant without proving the former. If there WAS a tower on the moon, what it does is the next step to figure out. The fact I may not agree with it being a soul collector doesn't mean that a tower exists or doesn't exist. A tower COULD be there but have a different function. Who gives a toss what it does? If you want to dismiss the possibility of there being a tower there because you can't believe it's a soul collector, fill your boots.


So if I totally disbelieve the latter of ones claim based on the assumption of lies, I should take the first part at face value because you are convinced that such a tower exists in the first place?

What? Believe what you like, I won't stop you and my opinion shouldn't challenge you. I never said I believed there was a tower, I said the important thing is to establish a tower exists in the first place. Now I just think you like to argue.



These are the provable elements yet there are more taking a cheap shot than there are trying to disprove that these physical constructions are not there. Why?


Because this has not been proven. Just because you believe something to be true, doesn't make it true. I personally believe that there are structures on the moon that were not created by humans as we understand, but I do not have proof, only intuition. Please understand that I am not trying to be harsh but I do not discriminate when it comes to debating. If I thought that my own mother was wrong, I would call her out on the spot. Nothing personal.

Whatever. I never stated my beliefs on the tower, only made the point that John's theory is attacked for the non provable part i.e. the function of the tower and not the provable part, i.e. the physical construction. .


Now I'm confused I thought these were provable claims?
You have just contradicted yourself in one post I need another Hefeweisen

Maybe you should lay off them not grab another. Physical constructs on the moon are provable... maybe not now or next year, but they are provable, it's physcial. It's function is what everyone attacks him for... my point is that IMO, this is putting the cart before the horse.

I think that we should focus on proving or disproving the existence of the tower before slapping him for saying it collects souls. If you think that him saying it collects souls is a credibility destroyer and therefore, deductive reasoning leads you to dismiss the former claim (which is what I think you're saying), then don't worry, many people think like that and I suspect you're in the majority.

Some of us think differently and many before you make the mistake of thinking that guys like me are gullible and believe things when in reality that's incorrectly assumptive. We are simply weighing up the presented evidence and theories in an attempt to slot it into our own frame of understanding and dismissing an as yet UNPROVED claim of the tower because we don't like the soul part is not the way I want to process the information. OK?

As a result, I want the right to listen to John's theory as much as you guys want to ban him for hoaxing and depriving the rest of us from enjoying it. When you can prove to me that a tower DOES NOT exist, we'll talk. I've done enough research to think that not all he says is pie in the sky.



posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Prote, where is this Avatar photo you are using located on this Earth? Is there a reason you chose this specific photograph with water, mountains, snow and rocks in the backgound.

As far as John lear if he is 75 years old it tells me he has been around the block once or twice in his life time. He has met some very interesting people and had some incredible contacts in his life starting with his father.

Not many people can say they own a gold mine no matter how big or small. Most individuals who have a piolets license would envy John's flight accomplishments. The individuals that have read John's threads they all have a choice to read or not to read or to believe or not to believe.

Even if 50% of what he has contributed to his threads is correct it would be astounding the information he has furnished about the Moon, Solar System, UFO's and aliens. Yes of course we all have opinions some will be found to be correct and some will be found to be incorrect as time goes foward.

Even if John said here is real bonified photo of the the soul collector most people would say it is fake anyway. Furthermore most won't believe the soul collector tower is real anyway because it shacks them to the core of their beliefs and what they have been programed to think. Is it real I do not know but I do have an opened mind. Rik Riley



posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prote
Besides, saying something is provable is not claim I have proof.


Well than what is it?




Thanks for the attitude though.


You'll notice I started the phrase with "not to sound harsh". I intentionally did not give attitude, although if I wanted to I could have, you made it perfectly easy for me to do so.


I'm not claiming to have proof


Then how is it provable?



I'm saying that if there is a physical construct, that is provable or disprovable, the towers purpose should be the focus after we establish whether or not there is indeed a tower.


Which you claimed was provable!!!!



If you want to think that way, that's your perogative, don't get uptight about it.


Sounds to me as if you are the one getting uptight. All I did was ask you for proof for something that you claim is provable and then 1 paragraph later you claim is unprovable, I'm more confused than uptight.


For me, the latter is irrelevant without proving the former. If there WAS a tower on the moon, what it does is the next step to figure out. The fact I may not agree with it being a soul collector doesn't mean that a tower exists or doesn't exist. A tower COULD be there but have a different function. Who gives a toss what it does? If you want to dismiss the possibility of there being a tower there because you can't believe it's a soul collector, fill your boots.


Prove that there is a tower before you worry about its purpose. How hard is that to understand?



What? Believe what you like, I won't stop you and my opinion shouldn't challenge you.


don't worry..... it won't



I never said I believed there was a tower, I said the important thing is to establish a tower exists in the first place. Now I just think you like to argue.


Yes you did, you claimed, why are we arguing something that is provable?



Whatever. I never stated my beliefs on the tower, only made the point that John's theory is attacked for the non provable part i.e. the function of the tower and not the provable part, i.e. the physical construction. .


Yes u did. Provable means that you believe that can be proved so prove it.



Maybe you should lay off them not grab another. Physical constructs on the moon are provable... maybe not now or next year, but they are provable, it's physcial. It's function is what everyone attacks him for... my point is that IMO, this is putting the cart before the horse.


Prove that even ONE of them is anything close to a tower.


I think that we should focus on proving or disproving the existence of the tower before slapping him for saying it collects souls.


well according to you its been proven.


Some of us think differently and many before you make the mistake of thinking that guys like me are gullible and believe things when in reality that's incorrectly assumptive. We are simply weighing up the presented evidence and theories in an attempt to slot it into our own frame of understanding and dismissing an as yet UNPROVED claim of the tower because we don't like the soul part is not the way I want to process the information. OK?


Then stop claming them provable.


As a result, I want the right to listen to John's theory as much as you guys want to ban him for hoaxing and depriving the rest of us from enjoying it. When you can prove to me that a tower DOES NOT exist, we'll talk.


Would you like me to prove that unicorns DON'T exist as well?




I've done enough research to think that not all he says is pie in the sky.


So have I, so if you had actually read my other posts instead of making assumptions you would know that I do not totally disbelieve Mr. Lear, only that he has taken an inch and streached it into a mile!



posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by rikriley
As far as John lear if he is 75 years old it tells me he has been around the block once or twice in his life time. He has met some very interesting people and had some incredible contacts in his life starting with his father.


True. None of which validate anything he says.


Not many people can say they own a gold mine no matter how big or small.

Akon (the rapper) own a diamond mine, does that in anyway contribute to the valididty of his character?


Most individuals who have a piolets license would envy John's flight accomplishments.


Most Military strategists would admire Napolean or Hitlers accomplishments, I fail to see the validation of character here.


The individuals that have read John's threads they all have a choice to read or not to read or to believe or not to believe.





Even if 50% of what he has contributed to his threads is correct it would be astounding the information he has furnished about the Moon, Solar System, UFO's and aliens. Yes of course we all have opinions some will be found to be correct and some will be found to be incorrect as time goes foward.


Yeah, but who says that 50% of what he has contributed it true? I certainly am not subscribing.


Even if John said here is real bonified photo of the the soul collector most people would say it is fake anyway.


Well glad to see that you are phsycic. I guess we won't know since he is yet to produce said photo.


Furthermore most won't believe the soul collector tower is real anyway because it shacks them to the core of their beliefs and what they have been programed to think.


Yeah it would most likely "shack" me to the floor, so its best that we just keep the photo is John's safe so that I won't be deprogramed and lose my core beliefs (that UFO's do exist, just not the way Mr. Lear describes them.)



Is it real I do not know but I do have an opened mind. Rik Riley


Well, I do know that UFO's exist because I saw one so I know my eyes work, and my nose works as well and I know BS when I smell it, and Lear either needs to wipe his boots or brush his teeth cause I can still smell that Sh!t sandwhich when he speaks. I suggest you take a big whiff.



posted on Apr, 29 2007 @ 01:57 AM
link   
What any person has accomplished in their life cannot be used as the yardstick to measure another theory they espouse. Mr. John Lears accomplishments stand on their own, and that is exactly what they do, stand on their own.

The people that do not post on these threads are indicative as those that do. Soul collectors on the moon..? 6 mile high towers that cannot be seen, or are somehow airbrushed out of NASA pics, Zetan technology...on and on...

People are taking this seriously, and creating an entire level of "support" for something that does not exist. John Lear seems a nice enough person but buyer beware regarding these theories.

I worked at institutions and centers manufacturing testing equipment for research of Nano and related technologies that are now being suscribed to Extra-terrestrial origins.
This is somewhat disturbing to me since the scientists and technicians are people i know and worked with, into the late hours of the night testing new theories and applications for these discoveries.
ET didnt share technology with us, people like you and i worked hard and late proving them first with theory and then application. For each technology you touch and feel, there are countless failures in laboratories worldwide.

It isnt magic, and ET didnt send us blueprints in return for human genetic testing. it is damn hard work to prove these technologies out, nanotech was developed in labs back in the late 60's-early70s. It took this long to bring to market.
Computer science took thousands of years, can be traced back to analog computors demonstrating the stars, used by ancient greeks.

It is criminal to ignore the blood and sweat of dedicated people and credit their work to a ET's that dont exist living on imagined moon bases collecting our souls on 6 mile high towers nobody prove.


Just my feelings on this subject.



posted on Apr, 29 2007 @ 05:08 AM
link   
"You have voted kleverone for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month."

I have to agree with Kleverone. This forum is supposed to be based on the idea of denying ignorance, so shouldn't someone try to provide proof to any outrageous claims that they make? Mr. Lear's posts make some pretty big claims, that if they could be proven would certainly change humanity's conception of reality. Would I like to believe him? Yes, I would. Do I believe him currently? Sorry, but his claims are too fantastic to be taken seriously without anything more than the poor quality pictures of the moon we have seen here on ATS.

Sorry John, but I just don't have enough faith in you until you can provide tangible evidence.



posted on Apr, 29 2007 @ 05:29 AM
link   
Im still waitung for that holographic projector or any evidence of it to turn up


as to 6 mile high towers on the moon
not much to say about that either



posted on Apr, 29 2007 @ 07:04 AM
link   
Mr Lear has never claimed to know these things and it is only his opinion, hence the 'disclaimer' in his sig... I am confused why he would think these things though, with no evidence presented, esecially given his past position


[edit on 29-4-2007 by Xeros]



posted on Apr, 29 2007 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Kleverone (lol)

So you maintain your agression and want to continue with a semantic argument, fine.

Your issue seems to stem simply from my use of the word "provable". Perhaps I should clarify this before you rupture something.

I can see your confusion but just because we misunderstand is no requirement to write with a certain "tonality".

By the word "provable", I mean that this tower, as a physical construct, has an ability to be proven... or disproven at some point, with the right means.

You said...

Yes u did. Provable means that you believe that can be proved so prove it.

Yes, I do believe it can be proved, this is different to saying that I have proof and I have it right this second. I don't have the means so I remain open to it.

If I had the means to take you out of body and take you to Sinus Medii, or take you on some sort of craft to show you the area, or Richard Branson gets a shift on with his Lunar vacation business, we could both look at either a tower, or the lack of a tower.

The fact that we could potentially do this at some point, means that someone's claim of a tower is provable... or disprovable. It simply means that it is not impossible to gain proof. If you take this away from the intended manner even after I explained it to you twice, I can't help you further. Most things are provable, whether we have the means or not.

You also said...

Prove that there is a tower before you worry about its purpose. How hard is that to understand?

Thank you. This is my point. So we DO agree.

and...

well according to you its been proven.

No, proven is past tense. Hopefully my explanation above clears up the matter.


The rest of your post was bunk, so I won't respond to it to argue for argument sake. Continue your obstination if you wish. The bottom line is that I also believe, in the same manner that John's claims on the tower are provable, they are similarly disprovable. Banning him for hoaxing before we have proven or disproven the claim of the towers' existence is the preverbial throwing the baby out with the bathwater.


rik
My avatar is not a photo of Earth. I think it is CGI.



posted on Apr, 29 2007 @ 08:44 AM
link   
what really gets me thinking about people like mr john lear and other people of respected or high stature is that when coming out with there Theories or opinions there then asked to show some proof..

its always like one in a thousand people coming out saying there thoughts about possible underground bases/u.f.o's/area 51... why are'nt these peoples silenced by the goverment?.. what because of the people they know?,, or simply are we there protection?.. so if something were to happen to them "i hope not" then this would add more speculation to what really is going on..

maybe the u.s goverment or world goverment wants us to think john lear is a crazy old man and people like bob lazar are sci fi nut jobs?...

i really like mr john lear's ideas/thoughts/opinions, for people like my self who's never been in america, he gives you an insight to alot of things weather true or not...

at least if you have the al posts in a game sense"idea;s theories" coverd you've got a better chance of figuring out what exactly the truth is..

i've noted lots of people's ideas/opinions/thoughts on this site including john lear's then i work on my own theories and carry on toddling through life like normal.. and untill someone has got the balls to really go out there and get there hands dirty with this kinda stuff maybe some of us will never get to know in out lifetime...

Regards
Refuse



posted on Apr, 29 2007 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by redseal
He is 75+ yrs old though, just some food for thought!


RedSeal, do you mean to imply that Mr Lear is a senile, grumpy old man?

LOL





new topics
top topics
 
26
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join