John Lear's Claims Of Civilizations on Most Planets

Although this is primarily aimed at John, anyone is free to answer and shed light on this. John, please do not view this as an attack on you, although we disagree on just about everything you are never negative and one of the most entertaining posters on here. So here we go:

In a recent thread John Lear claimed, as a matter of fact, that most of the planets in our solar system were not only habitable, but are in fact inhabited by advanced civilizations. He states this in a way as to dismiss anyone who thinks other wise.

My challenge is this; John, or John supporters, give up the overwhelming amount of verifiable evidence that your claims are correct (you can't). I should say, although many of you claim that this stuff is being hidden from the public by the powers that be, it occurs to me to remind you there are hundreds, if not thousands of astronomers, grad students, etc, with equipment and technical capability we can only dream of that would be falling over themselves to be able to claim any of this while putting their name on it. The "man" does not control them. So why has nobody credible, or no verifiable evidence come to light other than goofy books and internet postings claiming this stuff as fact.

I'll tell you, because none of it is true. Fun to imagine, but not true. I mean, if John knows something that can be verified by hundreds of highly educated, technical people with no agenda and no ties to the "man" then why has it not been done already? I'll tell you, because conclusive evidence that his and other's claims are complete fantasy would put a damper on their hobby and "cult" like status. If I spoke about such things, and had people foolish enough to believe me I would not give out enough information to prove me wrong either.

John, if your claims can be verified then I will print out this very post and eat my words with salt and pepper while you and your supporters throw rancid pickles at my naked body.

I am waiting for the convenient excuses as to why none of this can be investigated and verified.


[Mod edit to title - clarifying question]

[edit on 6-9-2007 by elevatedone]

what is the "official position" on the desolate Mars rover images?

reply to post by jamesder


I suppose its a pretty safe assumption that the images themselves can be considered the "official position".

its all about holographic projecters

some see them some dont
simple as that

I've seen plenty of pictures from the rovers of rather interesting shaped rocks, maybe even fossils..if nothing else they deserved a look and where completely ignored. I dont trust necessarily they have our best interest's at heart..among other things.

Originally posted by jamesder
what is the "official position" on the desolate Mars rover images?

I think some of this UFO guys don't yet see that since the invention of the web, now what they say is broadcast across the nation and around the world. I'm as passionate about the possibility of extraterrestial life as any other guy here, but wasn't until I got into the web that I found all this stuff that is out there about moon bases, civilizations everywhere in the solar system and stuff, I use to think that the grey stuff was to much for me, but believing in Greys is nothing if you compare it to some of the stuff that is out there now.

Ufology is changing, people are more knowledgeable now and more inquisitive, what this experts say now, is heard around the world in seconds, while back then a hoax took years to debunk now it take days. Many convinient excuses are given for lack or no evidence, I was reading sleeper thread and I seriously did not knew what to think, I mean he could take pictures but only to put him on his locker. How convinient?

IMO opinion finding some form of micro bacterial life in Mars would be more captivating than whatever this guys has to say.

[edit on 6-9-2007 by Bunch]

reply to post by MrPenny


I figured he did not actually believe it himself. It's just too darn entertaining to be true, lol. And John has always been a good guy about anyone who doubt him. I just worry about the people who take him seriously.

A few questions here...

but first ... John Lear is very interesting to read and , I have to agree he is entertaining...

Ok now the questions for everyone.

According to what we have been taught , The venus atmosphere is like 461.85 degrees C (861 F ). The question is how did we manage to soft land a probe on the surface. I would think that the parachute would of burned up or melted long before it reached the surface.

the official explanation is as follows ...

" Four more Venera lander missions took place over the next four years, with Venera 11 and Venera 12 detecting Venusian electrical storms; and Venera 13 and Venera 14, landing four days apart on March 1 and March 5, 1982, returning the first color photographs of the surface. All four missions deployed parachutes for braking in the upper atmosphere, but released them at altitudes of 50 km, the dense lower atmosphere providing enough friction to allow for an unaided soft landing" - Source Wikipedia

it might just be me but something about the official explanation doesn't ring true.

About Mars ... The biggest questions I have about mars is why does nasa insist on coloring the sky red. One explination I have found is What color is the sky on Mars


The moon : This is Mr . Lear's Forte .... though there are a few things that I just don't buy about the moon and other things he has stated on this board I can actually buy into.

An atmosphere on the moon , plausible. .. Yellow ... stretching the believability factor there. Moon bases ... Very possible and even Nasa unintentionally adds to the credibility to that with all of the Moon picture edits and air bushing

The question here is , human of alien bases ?

Soul capturing ... This one is a bit hard to swallow , it is akin to trying to eat an entire car.

I thought i had something to say ... I guess not .. sorry for the ramblings

Originally posted by jtc1967
A few questions here...

The venus atmosphere is like 461.85 degrees C (861 F ). The question is how did we manage to soft land a probe on the surface. I would think that the parachute would of burned up or melted long before it reached the surface.

I work with materials every day that handle that temperature, and remain flexible. In the industrial community this is not black magic or anything. And some of these materials have been around industry for a very long time.

it might just be me but something about the official explanation doesn't ring true.

Don't take this as an insult, but you must dig a little deeper than wikipedia in order to understand enough about it to say that. Saying something doesn't "ring true" when you are ignorant of the technology and processes involved is ludicrous. What you should say is "something does not make sense to me" Your indication that something about it is "false" seems to be nothing more than an attempt to perpetuate or plant the seed of some conspiracy. Don't feel bad, most conspiracies are chalk full of people that are ignorant to the facts.

About Mars ... The biggest questions I have about mars is why does nasa insist on coloring the sky red.

By saying that NASA insists on coloring the sky red are you privy to some sort of memo stating that, or trying to insinuate there is some nefarious reason as to why they "insist" on coloring the Mars sky red? That's a bold statement to make in that manner.

The moon : This is Mr . Lear's Forte ....

If lunar knowledge is his forte, I would love to see what you would consider his "piano"

though there are a few things that I just don't buy about the moon and other things he has stated on this board I can actually buy into.

And that's how conspiracy crap gets a foothold. If he said everything so crazy that you would believe nothing he says then he wouldn't be getting the attention for his more outlandish stuff. Peeper a goofy story with enough semi-facts and you reel more people in. What is it my dad used to tell me, something about wrapping a lie in the truth making it easier to swallow......

An atmosphere on the moon , plausible.

No, it is not...unless you believe that we have not been to the moon. But if you can't accept that kind of event supported by overwhelming scientific fact then your already lost.

Moon bases ... Very possible and even Nasa unintentionally adds to the credibility to that with all of the Moon picture edits and air bushing

The amount of industry needed to build a moon base would be impossible to have without compromising secrecy. You forget, NASA does not really build crap. They are a bunch of offices. Damn near everything they do is outsourced to hundreds of subcontractors. They lack the ability to build a "secret" moon base on their own, and there is no way you could keep that one secret for any length of time (well before you actually got to the moon to start construction the bird would be out of the bag) Just apply common sense to it and your doubts are answered.

The question here is , human of alien bases ?

They must be alien, and invisible. There is no human settlement on the moon, period.



[edit on 6-9-2007 by IgnoreTheFacts]

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts

If lunar knowledge is his forte, I would love to see what you would consider his "piano".

Actually its a Story & Clark console. Its old, I got it in the late 1970's. I don't play as much as I used but I tickle the ivories every once in a while, mostly Bach, a little jazz, a little boogie woggie (that dates me huh?)

There are some really good pianos out there these days if I had the money I would get a Sammick baby grand, but one that was made prior to 2001. My daughter has one. WOW! What a sound!

My little sister just got her masters in theatre and musical arts. There is one talented woman. Some of you may have heard here music her name is Tina Lear.

Thanks for asking IgnoreTheFacts.

I don't think anyone knows anything, really. It's like, until you've actually been to the moon yourself, you can't say what is or isn't there. All of these so-called expert disputing claims on this website are nothing more than second-hand disputers. They learned whatever theories they preach in clown college and then they tell everyone else who says differently that they're wrong. Some things can be proven, but until an astronaut who's been to the moon comes on here and talks straightforward and clearly about what he saw on the moon, don't pretend you know anything ABOUT the moon. The only way you can really know is through experience, and experience is a lot more than reading a book about the moon. And by the way, you're not very learned if you think that life is a linear thing, that it only operates in one dimension. Life could very well operate in many other forms than just carbon based, and indeed if you're at all spiritual or do any sort of meditation or higher awareness training, you'll know this as fact. Science is the new religion, and it's full of bullspit just like any other religion, so all you self proclaimed scientists out there really need to think for a few minutes and open your mind a littl;e more before opening your mouths any more than you already have.

[edit on 6-9-2007 by indierockalien]

Science is not a religion.

Religion is faith in the supernatural without evidence.

Science is knowledge of the natural world through observation and testing of natural law.

People who call science a religion do not know what science is and are trying to drag it down to the level of religion so it can be dismissed outright, just like every religion that the accuser does not believe in.

Science constantly proves itself wrong as well, so other people don't have to.

See what I mean, as crazy as I think John can be he has a great sense of humor. But John, why don't you take this thread as an opportunity to scientifically present your case? Shut people like me up. Heck, I am not stubborn in my current views (I do not call them beliefs, as that indicates a more rigid stance), actually I'm a whore, lol. I go to whatever side can present the most evidence (mixed with common sense of course, remote viewers are not evidence here in the real world). If you have verifiable information, wham, I'm on your side until someone proves you wrong.

I would expect that someone, maybe even yourself, would want to reply something like "he does not anyone to believe him for him to be right" or "your too close minded to understand the truth John is telling you" but those excuses are nothing but woo woo fodder and you know it.

Come on, show me something that the thousands of unpaid astronomy and science grad students can verify? Come on, just one thing you claim? Didn't think so. But shame on me for asking about verifiable information on such outlandish claims, I should be slapped for not having an open mind enough to accept what you spew without question.

Why waste time trying to prove something to someone who hasn't got the eyesight, capable of seeing the proof in the first place? There are varying degrees of evidence, some may see as undeniable, some may see as pure bullsh#t -- and each degree of 'evidence' is reflected upon differently, judging by the individuals life experiences -- their knowledge.

You've had different life experiences, you have a different mindset of knowledge -- therefore you see things differently. No problem with that, but the evidence we have will require a little more experiences on your behalf before you can expect to be convinced.

Not everything is black & white... we could try explaining things to you, maybe make things a little clearer -- but the kind of mindset you've already shown towards the opportunity, would prove that to be a pointless feet -- a waste of our time.

All the best to you,

Navieko

Ignore The Facts:

I am what you would consider a halfway point between yourself
and Mr Lear.

What I mean by that is this...

I would LOVE to believe what Mr Lear says about the alien population
within the solar system (as well as many of his other theories)
and my GUT does believe them...

But...

Like you, ITF, I cannot "ignore the facts"--- or rather, the lack of facts.

I am looking for the same type of answers from Mr Lear...
not as a challenge to him, but rather, the opposite...
I want facts to back up his theories so I can,
with a clear conscience, go out and tell it on the mountain, so to speak.

Here is one good answer from Mr Lear regarding these claims-
it is an answer he gave to basically the same question posed many months ago... (i am surprised he has not restated it yet)...

To the question of WHY no pro or amateur astronomer does not
use a telescope to document the existence of life in the neighborhood...

Mr Lear claims:

Ordinary telescopes are too weak to see the surface details...
and the big boys at observatories and universities are
tightly controlled in term of access/where they are pointed.

Personally, I can't imagine that there is NO rebel astrophysicist
somewhere out there with the right security access swipe card
who has not pointed the glass at Mauna Loa at the sexy neighbor
Venus like Jimmy Stewart did in "Rear Window"...

But hey- what do I know?

I'm so dumb I still think I saw a UFO in New Jersey over Labor Day weekend.


TPM

reply to post by Navieko



That's just the kind of response I would expect from the believer crowd. Something to the tune of "you just not life-experienced enough to understand the facts"

Come on man, give us a break. There is either enough verifiable evidence for the claims being made or this is not. It is that simple. Such outlandish claims require it. This is not some guy claiming he saw a ufo, and has a blurry night time video of it. This is a guy that claims people live on every planet in the solor system. If your going to make that claim, you should at least back it up.

But if you read my original post, I did mention there would be "convenient" excuses as to why people such as myself are dismissed by the blind-believers crowd. I even put convenient in bold type, as I knew someone would come back with some non-descript hogwash as to why they can't be bothered to prove such claims to the general public such as myself.

I said this once, I'll say it again. I'll print out EVERY post in this thread and eat it while John Lear throws rancid pickles at me if any of this can be proven. I want to believe, I am just not stupid or gullible.

But you see, thats the point. Why play ignorant? Your asking for proof, knowing that the evidence we have to present, is not enough to convince you. Further more, you so conveniently ignore the fact (which I'm very sure you're aware of) that all the evidence I speak of is on this very forum... right under your nose.

...which brings us back to my first post. We're not about to waste time going back and fourth over the same pointless bull. We know our evidence isn't enough to convince you -- if you're unwilling/unable to see what we see, or atleast assist in productive contribution to our research...than whats the point? ...why bother coming here?

You may have all the time in the world to want to have pointless debates/arguments... but we aren't so lucky/unlucky. Just agree to disagree, and thats that.

[edit on 7/9/07 by Navieko]

admin edit: DO NOT try to circumvent the foul language censors again. They are in place for a REASON.

[edit on 9-7-2007 by Springer]

Originally posted by HighDefinitionFilms


Ignore The Facts:

I am what you would consider a halfway point between yourself
and Mr Lear.

I start off a little worried with that statement

I would LOVE to believe what Mr Lear says about the alien population
within the solar system (as well as many of his other theories)

I would love to believe him too. Hell, I'm jealous fo the people that fall for his BS hook, line and sinker. I wish I was not the way I am, for I want to believe as bad as any of the woo woos around here. I just have this problem with common sense and verifiable facts that keep getting in the way of me believing such outlandish claims.

and my GUT does believe them...

What makes your gut feeling believe him? You are sitting on the fence of common sense and reason, don't give into what you want to believe, if you do you add to the dribble out there that makes every person interested in UFO's look like a complete and utter fool. You know what I say is right. But if your target clique is the believer crowd, no worries.

I am looking for the same type of answers from Mr Lear...
not as a challenge to him, but rather, the opposite...
I want facts to back up his theories so I can,
with a clear conscience, go out and tell it on the mountain, so to speak.

Hell yeah, me too. If he could prove he is right it would make my day, year, life for that matter. How cool would that be to find out he is right? Cool I tell you. And I agree, I would pimp for John louder than anyone if it can be verified. Otherwise I would be as foolish as those who believe him without a shred of verifiable evidence and those who fall back of two-bit excuses when challenged to present what they know.

Here is one good answer from Mr Lear regarding these claims-
it is an answer he gave to basically the same question posed many months ago... (i am surprised he has not restated it yet)...

To the question of WHY no pro or amateur astronomer does not
use a telescope to document the existence of life in the neighborhood...

Mr Lear claims:

Ordinary telescopes are too weak to see the surface details...
and the big boys at observatories and universities are
tightly controlled in term of access/where they are pointed.

NO THEY ARE NOT. That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Yeah, backyard folks such as myself do not own the equipment to explore his claims, that is true. But to say that every observatory in the world is "tightly controlled" as to where they can point it is laughable. I know first hand that is not true, having been in TWO and able to point it WHEREVER THE HELL I WANTED TOO. And second, if he is talking about spotting surface details on the moon, I wont even go into why they can't be resolved by any earth based telescope. It is a fact they can't be, and to argue that makes you look like a fool. So that statement alone is just plain aimed at those who already buy his claims, not those who want to buy them. hell, I want to buy them, show me something verifiable and it's done, lol.

Personally, I can't imagine that there is NO rebel astrophysicist
somewhere out there with the right security access swipe card
who has not pointed the glass at Mauna Loa at the sexy neighbor
Venus like Jimmy Stewart did in "Rear Window"...

Congrats, common sense is starting to kick in here............

But hey- what do I know?

I'm so dumb I still think I saw a UFO in New Jersey over Labor Day weekend.

You did, in every sense of the word. What you can't claim is that you saw an interstellar spaceship on a covert mission to observe the people of earth on it's way to the secret ISS before landing on the moon to drop off supplies for their alien buddies that live on Venus.


And for all the people that don't want to post in this thread (for obvious reasons) it must be nice not to have to defend your positions with facts, and to have convenient excuses as to why 99.9999999999999999999999% of the people on this planet are not smart enough, open enough, or spiritual enough to understand you if you did "present your facts"

Complete and utter hogwash. And this is coming from someone who wants nothing more than to believe in what you believe in. I find it disappointing that with as many posts in this section about such goofy things, and a s many posts in this section that there are not more people wiling to convince me I'm wrong with anything other than some bs excuse as to why I would never understand if they even tried to or did. HOGWASH I tell you.

Originally posted by Navieko
But you see, thats the point. Why play ignorant? Your asking for proof, knowing that the evidence we have to present, is not enough to convince you.

No, sir I do not know that. There has not been any evidence posted that anyone can follow up. I am not set in my beliefs, I will go where the evidence takes me.

...which brings us back to my first post. We're not about to waste time going back and fourth over the same pointless bullsh#t. We know our evidence isn't enough to convince you

How convenient that by thinking that you feel as if you do not need to present anything to anyone. I had no idea that we are talking about religion here, lol. You are a perfect example of the type of person I spoke about in previous posts. Full of convenient excuses as to why you can't be "bothered" to convince 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the people on the planet that your head is not located in your ass.

You may have all the time in the world to want to have pointless debates/arguments... but we aren't so lucky/unlucky. Just agree to disagree, and thats that.

I do not agree that the argument of life in the universe is pointless, quite the opposite, actually. If I though the argument is pointless I would fall for everything that you apparently already, blindly, believe in and not worry about the fact or anything pesky like the truth.