Originally posted by PittsburghVince


My introduction to Ufology was "Flying Saucers from Outer Space" by Maj. Donald E. Keyhoe, a hardback I found in a Salvation Army bin for $1 as a boy of about ten. There was no better way to get hooked!

This is a stunning book by an actual distinguished officer involved in some verifiable high level programs. The movie adaption Earth vs. the Flying Saucers is a classic as well as a definate possibility of Keyhoe's knowledge of vertain events.
I mean the story seems to mimic some of what is now known quite well in both the high tech and UFO belief worlds. Travel between time theory,electro magnetic fields,Alien Ancients,bio enhancement suits,etc... Its all there.
And yeah Im sure John will be back up on Wiki soon. I keep sending a new complaint on this every couple of days since I discovered the omission.
Johns so legit in the Aviation realm that its scary and all verifibly factual.
Crazy place these "internet's".

Yet another nail in the coffin for Wiki's credibility death. They have decided they will determine what is an area of notable study and activity - NOT their audience.

Oh, you got confused some where. I don't care enough to voice anything at them. And I think I can still speak my opinion of them here at ATS on this subject, right?

I make extensive use of Wikipedia, and I'm sure I'll continue to do so. But this is a very good example that demonstrates (as if we needed further proof) that although Wikipedia has its place, it ain't all that and a bag of chips.

If you want to do research on-line, Wikipedia is a good place to stop by, but a bad place to just stop.

Kudos to our own Tin Wiki, which keeps growing and improving. And I wish I had more time to contribute to it.

I agree with that assessment yeah. Wiki is a good place to START research. It is not the place to think you found the gospel.

Originally posted by Valhall
Wiki is a good place to START research. It is not the place to think you found the gospel.

Thinking you'll find 'gospel' anywhere is your first mistake...

Also Phil Schneiders page is gone, i wonder why

thats just creepy. i tell my friends about this stuff and they think im weird..

i guess they don't believe because if everyone actually believed in this they wouldn't believe in god then that means everyone would be robbing banks and stores... wouldn't you think so?

[edit on 7-1-2008 by findme]

John lear was removed from Wikipedia because the things he says are true, if he doesn't have any credible information about himself for people to research they are going to assume he's lying which could be far from the case.

i don't understand how is that john lear disappearing from wikipedia will affect anything ?

I think this is highly interesting. Admittedly, there are a few reasons why "John Lear" could be legitimately sidelined, in that a lot of the stuff he documents can be sidelined, although this is true, that can be said for Phil Schneider, whom by the way was murdered (which is what is shown in the police report).

Also it is true to say that the likes of Lazar can be discredited easily, in fact I went for a decade disbelieving lazar's story because it was so easily debunked by the scientific/socially accepted paradigm of plausability (also known to some as plausable acceptability/deniability) - a chance based paradigm actually. So far to say that the likelyness for something to be true or not is based on the plausable (and thus supporting) documentation available.

Well, for people like Phil Schneider, Bob Lazar and John Lear, this has been something as a problem. It seems, a lot of people wanted to 'delete' any evidence of Lazar's education (i.e notoriety), this actually happened and was documented quite well. There are many other examples where, quite frankly, people got CAUGHT denying members of faculties whom people still working their had confirmed so.. I believe this was Brian O' Leary or Bill Holden or Ralph Ring, I can't remember which.

People need to understand something, notoriety & notability are something that is recorded as a matter of public record. When controls exist on public record (such as wikipedia, government education authorities) at the very least a risk exists for the corruption, or at the very least bias of the information is not only scientifically verifyable, but this is a matter of common sense and the operation of the human mind, morality, and exploitation. Nothing any of us should be unfamiliar with, opressed or supressor. So, I'm not sure how people are coming to the conclusion that John Lear is 'just some unimportant person' - surely this is a cultural determinisation (as someone like mckenna might say?) - actually, no it isn't. Its an information based one. Notoriety/notability is historical, that is so far to say evidencial and informatical, not cultural. However cultural changes to proceed these variables.

Just my 2 pence I guess

I've had something happen to me that makes me know not all of these unnotable and ignored 'nuts' are lying - and even if John Lear is lying, which I actually doubt, (even after hearing what Dan Burisch has to say on the matter)- I actually feel they all confirm my experience, which was close encounter lasting 30 minutes in a set of extremely amazing circumstances and co-incidences. That is so far to say that, these people are touching on existiances yet to be acknowledged by a majority, a difficult thing to gain notoriety in such circumstances, don't you think? Well, now we know how Wilhelm Reich and Tesla might have felt..


I guess, it doesn't how smart you are unless you understand how to exploit.


Peace,
A



[edit on 30-7-2009 by 7redorbs]