John Lear removed from wikipedia

I have seen the article on TinWiki -- good work!
For any who missed it: tinwiki.org...

ALSO, "John Lear" IS still in WikiPedia -- just not in English!

Example: sv.wikipedia.org...

Multilingual "friends of John" should make as many non-English entries for him as thy can. Maybe the WORLD can shame the Wiki editors into doing the right thing by this great American!

By way of introduction, I was active on the old Greater Pittsburgh UFO/ET Forum, as a founding member of the steering committee. The Forum was not on line, but held public UFO meetings in Pittsburgh, PA for several years on a WEEKLY basis. To our knowledge it was the only weekly open UFO forum held anywhere in the States at the time (I believe we disbanded not too long after the 50th Roswell anniversary). We spun off a contactee support group, had TV exposure, and did other good works, even if I do say so myself...

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!

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".

Has anyone here actually read the Wikipedia guidelines? I posted an article in the other thread as to why the article was deleted.

It's clear why the article was deleted but all people here seem to be interested in is vague handwaving and complaints of conspiracy.

Personally I think Howard Menger is way more interesting and credible than Lear! Menger was also predicting alien bases on the moon and Venus long before Lear.

[edit on 4-8-2007 by morpheus40]

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.

Originally posted by Valhall
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.

Wrong. It would be the death of Wikipedia if they didn't have standards for anything, including notability. The guidelines are developed by the consensus of Wikipedia contributors and readers. If you don't like the standards, or don't understand them, then perhaps you should voice your opinion at Wikipedia rather than ATS.

You can propose your own standards at the link below.

en.wikipedia.org...:How_to_create_policy

[edit on 4-8-2007 by morpheus40 because ATS forum sw is more interested in emoticons than posting URLs]

[edit on 4-8-2007 by morpheus40]

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...

Originally posted by morpheus40

Personally I think Howard Menger is way more interesting and credible than Lear! Menger was also predicting alien bases on the moon and Venus long before Lear.

I'll drink to that! Howard didn't predict anything. He actually went there! I just fantacized about it.

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]

Click here for more information.

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.

reply to post by The Phantom


John Lear is still on Wikipedia at : tinwiki.org...

reply to post by The Phantom

Did you find an answer to why he disappeared yet? I have noticed other things disappearing off the Internet, forums, information, etc that was there that was incriminating evidence concerning Area 52, or direct information that incriminated those in government, due to the fact that apparently certain folks in power think that Americans are too stupid to figure out that something's up. We're not stupid. We're curious. We also know there's been things going really wrong in world governments since WWII. How much talk do we hear about the medical experiments, Joseph Mengele, his tie to the Rothschild's and the new "world order"? Not a lot.
Peace out,

reply to post by The Phantom


Now he is in tinwiki.com is a secret stuff and conspiracy subjects from wikipedia.
tinwiki.org...

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]