Is John Lear Spreading Disinfo?

page: 32
26
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 25 2007 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by uberarcanist
Urg, it's quite a bit of a logical stretch from a tenuous trace atmosphere to something that an organism could actually breathe.


LOL perhaps but NASA has come from no atmosphere to a 'tenous' atmosphere, to admitting there may be more that originally thought... enough to create sunset rays... So who knows what they will say in a few months?

Afterall they said Mars was dry, then they said there once was a LOT of water, now they are showing pictures of current flows captured on camera within 5 years... and ESA found a frozen lake... (an don't forget the 100 square mile ice lake on the Moon )

So all we have to do is wait... they will eventually get it right





Originally posted by uberarcanist
we are faced with the painful truth that we are probably dealing with a government disinfo agent who is trying to steer us all away from the truth.


The only problem I see with your logic here is just exactly WHAT TRUTH is John steering us away from? Obviously you cannot be referring to the 'status quo' of main stream science... so you must be aware of some greater truth that you feel others are being 'steered' away from...

Please enlighten us...


Originally posted by malpaso
If you think John Lear is a complete hoax, why are you here.?


Because in truth they love him so much they can't get enough... I thought that was obvious... I mean look at all the "We love John" threads they start...



[edit on 25-10-2007 by zorgon]




posted on Oct, 25 2007 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


we love john
yeah at least the Learites have a good sense of humor.

No, no, no, I am not defending mainstream science, I am defending mainstream ufology! As in, the ufologists, such as Freidman and the guy who uncovered the Ramey memo who can back up their claims.



posted on Oct, 25 2007 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by uberarcanist
No, no, no, I am not defending mainstream science, I am defending mainstream ufology! As in, the ufologists, such as Freidman and the guy who uncovered the Ramey memo who can back up their claims.


So how do you define a 'mainstream ufologist'? Considering no one has yet shown absolute proof... what makes one opinion truer than another?

As to the 'others' here is a quote from one of my sources... who spent 25 years working with and around NASA...

Thanks, Ron. I got a kick out of reading your note! YES..MIB's do exist. Did you get a chance to read my story about the 'visitor' I met at MacDill? He had 2 sets of eyelids...honestly...reptilian! I about s*** my pants when I saw his eye...never forget them!

Now this person I believe... and this too came with more info...

There is really no such thing as main stream ufology... its like a religion... you chose who you think makes the best case...




posted on Oct, 25 2007 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


What about the Ramey memo, which couldn't be any plainer about a crash and subsequent coverup at Roswell? What about the Hill case, wherein an average couple learnt things from an abduction that astronomers wouldn't discover until several years later?

That, my friend, is hard evidence. What you and John post is hearsay and stuff that doesn't pass Occam's Razor.



posted on Oct, 26 2007 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by uberarcanist
That, my friend, is hard evidence. What you and John post is hearsay and stuff that doesn't pass Occam's Razor.


I just posted a whole page of HARD EVIDENCE in the Submarine thread...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The problem here is 'selective reading' by skeptics

And Roswell was one of ours not theirs



posted on Oct, 31 2007 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by kleverone

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

Well than what is it?

Prote, I see where you are coming from. Kleverone, I don't see what your objection is.

Here's how easy it is to prove that towers exist on the moon: Go there and see for yourself. The ONLY barrier against this happening is an independent lack of technical resources to get to the moon.

Consider something that at this point in time can't be proven or disproven: Goldbach's Conjecture. At this point in time, nobody has been able to prove or disprove it. Currently, we don't know if it is or isn't true or if we will ever know its truth. Sure, the Conjecture works for every number ever tested, but does that mean it will work for all of the numbers untested? We don't know until we can prove it and so far, nobody has.

Yes, it is possible to prove (or disprove) towers on the moon. The proof is simple. However, the means to execute the proof is currently unavailable until we can book seats on a spaceplane that will take us there.

If someone told me the exact coordinates of a gold mine buried 30m under the Pacific Ocean, then I could easily prove (or disprove) it. I only need to go and dig. However, technical limitations prevent me from getting there and digging.

There's a distinct difference in the logic of being able to prove something as opposed to the physical ability to actually execute the methods of the proof that are required.



posted on Oct, 31 2007 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


That's *not* hard evidence. That's plans for something that is technically infeasible given today's technology and has therefore not come into fruition, which I suspect Lear or someone else used as inspiration for a tall tale.



posted on Oct, 31 2007 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
There's a distinct difference in the logic of being able to prove something as opposed to the physical ability to actually execute the methods of the proof that are required.


Well said


Same applies when trying to access secret government files to offer proof...

They are there... but 'digging' them up is not feasible



posted on Oct, 31 2007 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by uberarcanist
That's *not* hard evidence. That's plans for something that is technically infeasible given today's technology and has therefore not come into fruition, which I suspect Lear or someone else used as inspiration for a tall tale.


(Re the data in the sub thread...)
Thats funny... I do not see John Lear's name on any of those documents... they say Rand Corp and Department of Defense dated 1972..

And the DoD states it as 'Active'

They say LA times report...

Now John has a lot of contacts, but I am sure he doesn't have the pull to influence DoD documents and patents..

But you never know....


Personally guys like you are so stuck on John, that if you tripped and hit your head on one I doubt you would call it hard evidence.




[edit on 31-10-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Does a wild pipe dream spawned by Cold War hysteria and a "we can do anything" Atomic Age mentality prove anything? No, it does not. You argue that these patents could not have been influenced by John, a point that I do not actually make (cough, straw man, cough cough) but instead I believe that the case can be made that these patents were the inspiration for John's stories, which have no basis in reality. I will conclude, but not concede, in my debate on this topic by stating that plans are not hard evidence of DUMBs until, in turn, there is hard evidence that they were actually executed.



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Well I will find us that proof... I have letters out to the DOE who has one of them... Don't know if I will get answers...

But we have talked with one 'fellow' from the NAVY who has ridden on these 'non-existing' tubes...

But in the meantime... on a different note... seems maybe we are about to get some real answers on NASA coverup and John's 'Moon Theories'



Seems NASA is up to something and Congress had to step in on one part of this breaking news

Well it looks like the 'crap' is about to hit the fan....

I have started a new thread on this but we all need to watch the developments unfolding... this is going to be BIG
www.abovetopsecret.com...'

Congress is already involved and the stories have already hit main stream media over the last week...

NASA Scientist Ken Johnston fired...
Was ordered to destroy Apollo and othe Moon images...

He refused...
And is going public!!!!

“I have nothing to lose. I have quarreled with NASA and I got fired,” Ken Johnston said.

Wednesday, October 31, 2007
U.S. scientists unveil NASA’s secrets about cities on the Moon and microbes on Mars
english.pravda.ru...

Oct. 25, 2007
NASA Dismisses Former Apollo Photo and Data Manager from JPL Educational Program Missing Apollo Data to be Shown at National Press Conference
www.sys-con.com...

22 Oct 2007
Possible Connection Between Next Space Shuttle Discovery Mission and Classified NASA Findings
www.earthtimes.org...



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by kleverone

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

Well than what is it?

Prote, I see where you are coming from. Kleverone, I don't see what your objection is.

...snip...

There's a distinct difference in the logic of being able to prove something as opposed to the physical ability to actually execute the methods of the proof that are required.


Hi Tezza,

Yes your post is dead on, that is what I was saying. It's an old argument though (over 6 months) and in kleverone's defence, he later posted this...


Originally posted by kleverone

Originally posted by Prote

Well, I feel the same, you're putting your own spin on something quite basic and simple and giving a shovel full of attitude with it and toward others, so let's agree to disagree


Actually I misread you original post, TWICE. You are absolutely correct. I was wrong and was trying to say exactly what you said in your original post. My apologies.


[edit on 1/11/07 by Prote]



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 03:27 PM
link   
I thought I would throw my two cents in here.
Since I can't put my video on here because I think it would likely violate some rule (it has a private u2u on it), I'll just say that I believe John, as an ex cia has a "job" to do, which is spreading disinfo. Of course this is only my opinion.
He started with his UFO stuff at the time when some very important things where going on that some folks would rather the public didn't pay attention to.. then lets not forget that he knows Robert Booth Nichols (not a very nice guy and who had his part in my dad's murder), lets also not forget what he told Lars Hansson about his part in the Iran-Contra affair.
Now, in my opinion since John has been spreading so much disinfo so long he may actually believe some of it.. thats not to say that I don't believe ufos exist or whatever, but there's a limit.
Hey John, how long can the CIA keep this secret?
See you messed up in your u2u to me, first, you know about the INSLAW/Octopus which I found odd for a "ufo guy" but hey, weirder things have happened, I overlooked that. But then you mentioned Bob.. that was your downfall.. I am not stupid.
desertfae



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by desertfaeBut then you mentioned Bob.. that was your downfall.. I am not stupid.


So ummm I'll bite... what's wrong with Bob?



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link   


So ummm I'll bite... what's wrong with Bob?


Robert Booth Nichols is not a nice guy.. I suggest you do some research on him.. how about his ties to the mafia, how about when he took the guy tied him upside down in front of a plane and turned it on so the guy was sucked toward it, how about his involvement in my dad's murder.. yea, he's not a nice guy.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by desertfae
Robert Booth Nichols is not a nice guy


Sorry wrong Bob but you didn't specify...



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 03:57 PM
link   


Sorry wrong Bob but you didn't specify...

Ahh yes, sorry about that. Bob=Robert Booth Nichols



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 05:32 PM
link   
I don’t believe this? Mr Lear? Why "Mr". you will be calling him a saint next. Saint Lear of ATS. You don’t call Any body else Mr. I wonder if it bugs “Mr” Lear.



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Originally posted by desertfae



then lets not forget that he knows Robert Booth Nichols (not a very nice guy and who had his part in my dad's murder)


Thanks for the post desertfae and Happy New Year. I missed this post during the Christmas rush.

The Bob Nichols I told you (in my u2 when you asked me what I knew about the Inslaw theft) who talked to Danny Casselero the day before he was murdered was not Robert Booth Nichols. I do not know Robert Booth Nichols. My friend Bob Nichols and his wife Ellen life in Honolulu. Bob is a financial advisor to Imelda Marcos. That was the Bob Nichols I was talking about.


lets also not forget what he told Lars Hansson about his part in the Iran-Contra affair.


If you are referring to the October Surprise written about by both Barbara Honegger and Gary Sick and the subsequent arms and weapons to Tehran I have told that story many times here on ATS and it is also in my life story floating around the web.


Now, in my opinion since John has been spreading so much disinfo so long he may actually believe some of it.. thats not to say that I don't believe ufos exist or whatever, but there's a limit.


Many share your opinion.


Hey John, how long can the CIA keep this secret?


You would be surprised what the CIA knows and what they have kept secret. And I mean really surprised.



See you messed up in your u2u to me, first, you know about the INSLAW/Octopus which I found odd for a "ufo guy" but hey, weirder things have happened, I overlooked that.


I wasn't always a "UFO" guy. I was actually pilot for a while. My interest in Inslaw/Promis was triggered when Michael Reconiscuito made a statement that he worked for my Dad up in Reno.

When Bob Nichols, told me he had talked to Danny the day before he was murdered I was even more interested in what the "Octopus" might have been.


But then you mentioned Bob.. that was your downfall.. I am not stupid.


Yes, that was Bob Nichols, financial advisor to Imelda Marcos. Not Robert Booth Nichols.

Last time I saw Bob Nichols is when he came to Las Vegas and took a private 2 day course from Bob Lazar. A bunch of us went to dinner at a real nice restaurant. Just before dessert I did my usual trick of flipping a pat of butter on the ceiling with a folded napkin.

Bob Lazar was sitting directly across from me and slowly looked up at the pat of butter on the ceiling. He then looked back at me and said, "John, thats a ten."

I felt really privileged as Bob did not give out very many tens.

Anyway thanks for the post and your thoughts. Sorry you got all mixed up on Bob Nichols.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
The Bob Nichols I told you (in my u2 when you asked me what I knew about the Inslaw theft) who talked to Danny Casselero the day before he was murdered was not Robert Booth Nichols. I do not know Robert Booth Nichols. My friend Bob Nichols and his wife Ellen life in Honolulu. Bob is a financial advisor to Imelda Marcos. That was the Bob Nichols I was talking about.
Sorry you got all mixed up on Bob Nichols.


I don't believe I'm confused on Bob Nichols at all... the same Bob Nichols (Robert Booth Nichols) spoke with Danny right before he died... nice job 'trying' to cover your tracks... btw, you got a laugh from some of my contacts when I mentioned you....apparently you're not well thought of in those circles.





new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join