Originally posted by desertfae

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...

WHOOPS!!! Please accept my apologies desertfae, you are absolutely correct! Robert Booth Nichols is the Bob Nichols I know. I won't bother you with the details because you definately won't believe them.

nice job 'trying' to cover your tracks...

Thanks you for bringing this to my attention.

btw, you got a laugh from some of my contacts when I mentioned you....apparently you're not well thought of in those circles.

I don't know which circles those are but there are not many where I am well thought of.

But thanks for the post. You have clearly shown I have been dead wrong about some things.

I came across a photo of me and Robert Booth Nichols in my den probably just after 911 but I can't remember exactly.

I believe that we are sharing a Cognac and discussing the lunar atmosphere:

Originally posted by johnlear (Signature)
I seek only the truth. But let me make it perfectly clear how little I think I know:
1. All of my claims are only possibilities.
2. I could be completely misinformed.
3. All of what I believe might not be true.

So John, Is this why you can get away with unsubstantiated claims and others cant? Because it does absolve you of anything, like a disclaimer, whether you are right or wrong? What do you think? Seriously though...

[edit on 25-1-2008 by Xeros]

Originally posted by Xeros

johnlearsigI seek only the truth. But let me make it perfectly clear how little I think I know:
1. All of my claims are only possibilities.
2. I could be completely misinformed.
3. All of what I believe might not be true.

So John, Is this why you can get away with unsubstantiated claims and others cant? Because it does absolve you of anything, like a disclaimer, whether you are right or wrong? What do you think? Seriously though...

No. This is the disclaimer that accessdenied insisted I put in my signature.
What would you like me to put?

In his speech to the MUFON convention in LAs Vegas on July 1, 1989, Mr.
Moore had this to say about the subject: "Disinformation is a strange and bi-zarre game. Those who play it are completely aware that an operation's success is dependent upon dropping false information upon a target or `mark', in such a way that the person will accept it as truth and will repeat, and even defend it to others as if it were true. One of the key factors in any successful disinformation scheme is that it must contain some elements of truth in order to be credible. Once the information is believed, the work of counterintelligence is
complete. They can simply withdraw in the confidence that the dirty work of spreading their poisonous seeds will be done by others."

And Bill Moore would know ALL about it. Thank goodness someone like THAT doesn't have their own forum at ATS.

I mean, can you IMAGINE the harm they could do on a daily basis, leading people astray, shilling for penny ante con job books and such, and all the other Good Friday mystification that goes along with it?

Wow, we really are lucky not to have anything like that happening.

Phew.

Geez, thank God we have Doghead here to protect the idiot masses of the world from John Lear.

Do you wear your underwear on the outside of your pants, too?

No, not that I am aware of. I don't have my own forum here to promote my utterly crazy, nonsensical rubbish either. That conspiracy forum sure does come in handy to carry out defamation, innuendo based smears and general disinformation exercises. Quite a coup.

Paranoia is a mental illness, not a state of grace. Do you really care so little for truth and evidence that you would like to see serious discussion generally replaced with unsubstantiated gibberish? Really?

Wow.

I ascribe to the point of view of:

"Do what you want with you and yours, leave me and mine alone"

Very Buddhist in concept, as I realize that my desires cause my misery. The worst desire of all is the desire to control others. This seems to be causing you much misery. Enough that you have gone from being able to take a moral high ground (simply stating opinions to contradict others opinions) to a full fledged smear campaign (whereby you have started several threads in an attempt to defame). I haven't even read them. Your intent is clear.

Intelligent discussion rarely uses another individual as the topic, unless you are a psychologist. This is not a psychology forum...so what gives?

I say you let it go and just fight your battles as they pop up (rather than creating your own battlegrounds). Otherwise, you are just going to be labelled a hater.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
I haven't even read them. Your intent is clear.

Perhaps you should read the discussion between Lear and I? learn the background with it as well- See, here's the deal.
My dad, his best friend Fred and Fred's girlfriend Patty were all murdered (which is where I come into this) but there were several other murders as well. John Lear just so happens to know one of the major players and calls him a 'friend".. of course he first denied it, but then as you see, he posted a picture of himself with this guy..
The murders are to prevent leaks.. but guess what.. Lear himself had a part in what they were trying to stop being leaked.. and not on the side of exposing the truth, he had a part in the coverup. He knows this, and has admitted to it in a vague way.
He also admitted to me in a private message that he is CIA.. see, here's where more vague stuff comes in.. the COO of the site will say "he's never had a CIA paycheck" however, if you learn about how the CIA covert ops stuff works, you'll know how they use fronts to pay their employees.
Seriously, do not just take what Lear says as gospel.. he has a job to do, and it's not spreading the truth...
What is my intent in this? Exposing the octopus and truth.

I am not a detective. I am simply a researcher.

I don't believe John Lear's stuff lock, stock, and barrell. I don't take many peoples word for stuff.

Being a fairly smart person, i took notice of the work Zorgon was doing, however, and have tried to emulate some of the steps that he uses. There are some amazing finds in government archives, but they are disappearing at an alarming rate (as Zorgon and other claim).

What you have to parse is that just because I am interested in hearing what he has to say doesn't mean i am going to believe everything he says. He himself admits that it veracity is often suspect. I don't see why I should believe any different.


The things you want to claim and discuss are going to need some legal action before i am willing to consider it. I am very aware of the allegations (I do read these forums, after all) and am familiar with Gordon Novel (i am on the projectcamelot mail list).

Regardless, allow your legal recourse to work...but quit following the guy around and trolling. It screws it up for everyone, and that really sucks.

This is a forum. Point and counterpoint is how it works. Consider me the counterpoint for the Learish goblinism.

Hegel would be so proud.

Calling bulls__t isn't trolling, it's just calling bulls__t.

Originally posted by DogHead
This is a forum. Point and counterpoint is how it works. Consider me the counterpoint for the Learish goblinism.

Hegel would be so proud.

Calling bulls__t isn't trolling, it's just calling bulls__t.

You can call it what you want. I am cool with that.

But you are not distinguishing the difference between calling him on his BS, and crossing the line into obnoxiousness.

You are not calling his theories into question so much as his character. While one may indicate the other, i would not say it is true often enough to warrant that as a general rule (consider one of thousands of "heretics" that laid the foundation for our current understanding).

I read your link in the other thread. Interesting read. It would seem to support the concept that the UFOlogy field is a dog eat dog world. If it were true in its' entirety, the only thing that changes is that i would be more leary of meeting John at his home. Since it is still unfounded (i am not calling you or your friend a liar, but stating that the whole story is as much heresay as Johns rebuttal) i can only be mostly indifferent about it.

I suspect that, until you get legal recourse or some level of proof beyond the anecdotal, not many people are going to fall in line with your story.

And the fact that you are restating it over and over again as justification to disbelieve what John (and Zorgon, too...although they are indeed two separate people) posts and to level personal attacks on it.

I love your avatar. That was a really good movie. I love some of the hidden messages it contained.

[edit on 29-1-2008 by bigfatfurrytexan]

It doesn't trouble me at all.

Wherever possible I provide evidence or direct people to places or webpages where evidence and information exists, whether it is something I know of from personal experience or from investigation. That's the big difference. In relation to Meier, it is a case of a fraud having real experiences. He was always going to be some sort of cult type charlatan, a touch of L Ron Hubbard if you will, and then along come the real experiences.

But what were those real experiences? It isn't a question of did some of the things happen, they are on film. And no, I don't mean his film.

To me, that is the key difference. Like my sig says, fiction leaves no paper trail. And as I have said before, even when hoaxers or hucksters try and leave a paper trail it is swiftly unravelled.

I have never yet and will never ask anyone to suspend their disbelief. It's healthy.

John Lear is spreading something, of that I am sure.

It cannot be easy for a son, growing up under a true powerhouse father. That said, many do it without resorting to fantastical claims of mythical personal greatness in order to cope.

In my opinion, he is harmless and can be interesting.

He should consider unleashing his imagination in some form of popular fiction and be proud of his creations.

Some very interesting posts on the subject.
My personal feelings are that Lear has been
a patsy,spreading disinfo and fear amongst the
ufo community about evil ET`s ,as has already
been posted on here.
Maybe part of a black ops,that will eventually lead
to a faked event(s),much much bigger and more frightening
for the general public than 9/11 ever was.
Just my personal opinion though!

Elmer_Dinkley

Originally posted by Elmer_Dinkley

Maybe part of a black ops

Elmer_Dinkley

BINGO!

Rachel aka desertfae

Greetings all!

This is my very first post and I pray that I do not make too much of a hack of it. And I readily admit that, at 33 pages, I, at best, scanned over the material in this thread (At least the last fifteen or so pages).

But my ideas on the original subject of this Thread seem to differ from what I have seen so far. I have witnessed absolutes. Polarized opinions. Paraphrasing it seems to fall into two camps, John Lear is Legitimate? Or is John Lear involved in disinformation.

My idea is, maybe it is a bit of both?

Imagine an episode of CSI, where we are informed that a single hair, left at a crime scene, can be enough evidence to prosecute us. The average person would try to clean a crime scene spotless. This is a vain tactic. The human eye misses so much. But, imagine if a criminal were to rob the dumpster of a local, high volume, hair cuttery, taking bags of hair away... What if this criminal then dumped all that hair INTO the crime scene.

Suddenly a matching hair, from the criminal is no longer a cut and dry case. It is ONE hair out of dozens, or hundreds of different hair samples. The criminal has, effectively, glutted the evidence chain and created reasonable doubt.

I personally think, from what I have read (And, yes, i do realize that my join date is very recent. But I have lurked on this sight, of and on, for years. Never as much as the last month of so. But it is not unfamiliar to me), that JohnLear seems to work in a manner not unlike the above mentioned imaginary criminal.

John Lears' personal history is replete with examples that he tends to buck the system and do things on his own terms. What more exciting thing could there be, for such a man, than to be told that he can release extremely cutting edge facts, just as long as he buries them in with tons of false information as well.

Diamonds in the rough. One fact sandwiched between ten misdirections? Twenty?

What a wonderful feeling it would be to know that you'd be allowed to tell your own story, no matter how outrageous or secret, just as long as you couched that secret in with enough packaging (sic disinformation) as to make the revelation seem harmless and suspect.

I offer this as food for thought only. And I offer it because the idea came to me, very quickly, as I read Mr. Lears' posts.

My opinion is that Mr. Lear is a very intelligent man. His storied, if not slightly mysterious past, seems to have impressed the moderators (Who check credentials if I am not mistaken, but who are not obligated to share the results of such checks with the general population here) to such a degree that they support him openly. Mr Lear presents himself as jovial, sage, and wise. He deals with negative posts, and their posters, with a skill that proves a mastery of diplomacy and tact.

A man this well rounded, in my estimation, would not be prone to exotic flights of fancy unless there was reason. And, despite what I have read earlier in this thread, he seems to show no signs of senile dementia that I can observe.

Kudos to Mr Lear. If nothing else, he provides this community with much to ponder and he proves to be a wellspring of class.

Regardless of beliefs, or position, Mr Lear has most certainly won my respect as a human being.



[edit on 7/3/08 by Hefficide]