It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

John Lear........disinfo agent???

page: 8
12
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Navieko
 


So, if you don't like the message (John Lear is deliberately promoting junk), shoot the messenger (ITF), right?

A better tactic would be to somehow defend JL, but I doubt that a serious defense can be mounted, his credibility is just too low, IMHO.

[edit on 19-9-2007 by uberarcanist]




posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by uberarcanist
reply to post by Navieko
 


So, if you don't like the message (John Lear is deliberately promoting junk), shoot the messenger (ITF), right?


That's just it. That's not a message, that's a statement of belief. The message from ITF is John Lear is a fake and should be chastised and potentially banned for what he writes here. He offers no counter-argument other than "Use your common sense, Francis!" which is really no argument at all. Common sense only goes so far when discussing and arguing John's outlandish claims. There has to be some intellegence put forth to argue the issues John posts and promoting the idea of John being any sort of dis-info agent can be anybody's opinion, but, common sense says to me that people who stand up, point their finger and proclaim "Liar" are more than likely those who have something to hide.


A better tactic would be to somehow defend JL, but I doubt that a serious defense can be mounted, his credibility is just too low, IMHO.



To you. And to ITF. And that's fine. Hold your position. But this thread smacks of recruitment to the "Let's Ban John Lear!" club because if you're not one of us, you're one of them!
Ignore, you've said this whole thread is just a joke you are sharing with John and everyone should have a sense of humor about it.
I get it.
It's not really a funny joke anymore and I, personally, never thought it was. And I have an immense sense of humor! Colossal!
As far as how I feel about John Lear? I am not a follower of his theories. I don't memorize his posts word for word as ITF has eluded to on the first page of this little bash-session on a fellow member of a good site. I think John posts with intellegence and a language anyone can understand and so following his thought process is fairly easy.
Easy enough for those who will listen and want to hear more and easy enough for the skeptics to read and disagree with point by point. And after all is said and done John still displays a good nature and demeanor to his fellow posters. (most of the time, right John?)

I'll retract everything I said that was even remotely negative against ITF and I won't resort to sheer anger anymore. But I will agree to just disagree with his (ITF's) opinions and posting style. I'll be big. I'm sorry I eluded to Ignore the Facts as a "Jerk". It was wrong of me. It's only my opinion and I'm sure he has many endearing qualities I'm just not seeing.

Cuhail



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Cuhail
 



The message from ITF is John Lear is a fake and should be chastised and potentially banned for what he writes here.


Whoa there fella, when did I say that? NEVER. You either need to learn to read, or quit trying to read into stuff that I don't say. I know you want to believe people are out to get your fearless leader, but I am not, nor ever, trying to shut him up. Again, read my posts before you make such a foolish, outlandish statement. I'm embarrassed for you.


I think John posts with intelligence and a language anyone can understand and so following his thought process is fairly easy.
(I corrected your spelling of "intellegence" in the above quote, lol)

So do I , and have said so. I find his posts to be the most well read and entertaining posts on this board. Total bunk and foolishness, but entertaining. I never said John was stupid or an idiot, re-read the posts if your going to try to connect those dots, my friend.

Now, back on topic: Dude, you want to shut me up? Show me a picture of the 600 million people that live on Venus. Show me a picture of the moon's atmosphere or the hanging gardens, show me a picture of the moon's bubble cities. That would shut me up.

edit for bold type


[edit on 20-9-2007 by IgnoreTheFacts]



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuhail
 


Whether or not what John Lear writes is easy to understand is not important. What's important is the impact he's having on the quality of the information of the forum and the forum itself. On the first count, the effect is unequivocally negative. He's posting bad information and I'm almost sure that he knows it. On the second, I can't help but believe the effect there must be negative as well. A forum can only tolerate so much crap before it loses all credibility. I don't want us to wind up like C2C.



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Originally posted by uberarcanist



Whether or not what John Lear writes is easy to understand is not important. What's important is the impact he's having on the quality of the information of the forum and the forum itself. On the first count, the effect is unequivocally negative. He's posting bad information and I'm almost sure that he knows it. On the second, I can't help but believe the effect there must be negative as well. A forum can only tolerate so much crap before it loses all credibility. I don't want us to wind up like C2C.



Thanks for the post uberarcanist. Many would agree with your thoughts. As I mentioned before, I would respectfully suggest a review of your vocabulary. I sure that you could find more descriptive words than the ones you use which, although they may not technically violate the T&C's, they do call in to question your ability to express yourself with Queen's English.

Thanks again for the post.



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


Hmph. Better to be poor at grammar than to be poor at the facts. You know what John, I want to clear this up right now: I do not hate you, despite the "lack of respect" post I made earlier. If I were to, say, find you stranded on the side of the road in the Nevada desert, I would offer you a ride. I admire what you've done for the aviation community. At the same time, I'm going to remain adamant that you wore out your welcome on this forum a long time ago, at least as far as I'm concerned, and probably as far as the majority of the board is concerned.



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by uberarcanist
as far as I'm concerned, and probably as far as the majority of the board is concerned.


I highly doubt the 'majority' of the board think the same as you...thats quite a large amount of perfectly capable minds you're trying to represent. In the time that I've been here, I've only ever seen very few who think John deliberately gives 'disinfo' -- and they tend to be trolls that have just signed up to say such things.

I'm willing to bet there are a heck of a lot more people who think John's genuinely offering what he believes may be truth, in comparison to those who think he's spreading disinfo.


[edit on 20/9/07 by Navieko]



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Navieko
 


The evidence doesn't add up to support a theory that Lear honestly believes in the information he's supporting. Consider the following:

1. Lear would have to be very smart to have done all the things he has in aviation, but anyone with basic undergrad science education can tell you there are serious flaws in his theories.

2. A dubious post here or there is probably an honest mistake, but Lear makes a habit out of making dubious posts.

3. He has previously ran covert ops for the government. It's not inconceivable that he would help them again.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by uberarcanist
The evidence doesn't add up to support a theory that Lear honestly believes in the information he's supporting. Consider the following:

1. Lear would have to be very smart to have done all the things he has in aviation, but anyone with basic undergrad science education can tell you there are serious flaws in his theories.


Can you please elaborate on this point? Examples? I'm not aware of these serious flaws -- and for which particular theories.

Cheers,

Navieko

[edit on 21/9/07 by Navieko]



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 05:11 AM
link   
If your not educated enough to understand even the most basic of serious flaws i John's theories, then may our new Martian overlords have mercy on your soul.

And, ubera, you made a good point. John claims to have ran black ops for the goverment before, so it is not inconceivable that he could still be on the goverment payroll.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


If you are implying that I need to be more civil, you have my pledge that I will start doing so.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 01:05 PM
link   


1. Lear would have to be very smart to have done all the things he has in aviation, but anyone with basic undergrad science education can tell you there are serious flaws in his theories.

2. A dubious post here or there is probably an honest mistake, but Lear makes a habit out of making dubious posts....


false, your not mad at john because you think he gives flawed information, i don't see you going off on half the people on this board. Your mad because he's john lear and he receives tons more respect than you do mostly for reason i think you don't understand. I think john gives some of the most interesting and insightful post on this board and he also has lots of inside information. Weather you like what he says or not, you guys have no reason to attack him, its so childish. And by the way as he has said many times his post are his opinions and his belief, he's not stating anything as ultimate fact or proof.



[edit on 21-9-2007 by luis9343]



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Because I know this will be misinterpreted by many........THIS IS ANALOGY.

In reponse to some of the comments that "if you don't agree with what he is saying....counter it"...

A child in the next room knocks a lamp to the floor. You hear the crash and immediately rush in....one broken lamp, one child.

"I didn't do it..."

"So who did?"

"Bobby......."

You know there is no "Bobby". But how do you counter that?......Clearly, your intellect and reasoning tells you the child broke the lamp. "Where is Bobby? I don't see him".......

"He left....." and on and on. It can't be countered from a point of reason precisely because it is so unreasonable. Must you walk around the room looking behind furniture? No, there is no Bobby.

"Bobby did it" is equivalent to "600 million residents of Mars". How do you reasonably counter fanciful?

That, I think, is how some skeptics feel.

John, I'm sorry to hear about your gold mine. I thought that was a very cool thing to have; a real, operating Nevada gold mine.....particularly since I'm a long-time fan of Louis L'Amour and his mining stories.

I finally figured you out. Keep having fun.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by luis9343
 


No, it's because hoaxers are routinely thrown off the board whereas John is allowed to stay and even have his own board. The mods inaction on John has resulted in him assuming a cult of personality. Most disinfo is swiftly put into check but John's, because the mods don't do anything about it and in fact encourage it, has become a cancer that I feel will one day bring down this board.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Navieko
 


Alright, lets take the "inhabited Venus" theory. Lear implies that the claims that Venus has a toxic atmosphere and hellish temperatures are false. But to believe this you would have to believe that all astronomers on Earth have been lying or wrong all these years and that both Russian and American space agencies have been faking data going back decades.

Also, there is the "directed energy weapons caused the WTC collapse" theory. Here, Lear either implies or directly states (too lazy to look up the thread but it hardly matters) that high energy beams were fired from Earth orbit to collapse the towers on 9/11. But if that were true, why didn't the radio telescopes detect this event? And before you say coverup, remember that seismographs picked up tell-tale signs of explosives and that wasn't covered up...

There's more where that came from if you need further proof that John is not telling the truth.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Mr. Lear, I used to hammer on you pretty good on this site because I thought you were the result of a spoiled upbringing, but a few days ago, I started seeing you in a different light during a conversation a friend told me this:

My father left me one dollar when he passed away in 1978. Incidentally I never got the dollar.

and also this:

The BLM shut down a small little gold mine I had in March of this year for an error in paperwork. They turned down 2 appeals to get it back up and running. Everything I had I put into getting that mine operational. Other than a few parts there is no hope of recovering my investment.

I didn't know about this:

My wife works full time which helps a lot.


You sir and I have more in common than I previously considered.
I also was left out of a large inheritance because my grandfather (who raised us) wanted me and my brother to "make it" on our own. He donated millions to different charities when he died, but he didn't even pay for our college education

long story short, he died, we got moved out.
cheers, JM



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by uberarcanist
 

Excellent post! this is the reason that I had a problem before with Mr. Lear's theories.
They are making ATS members look like a bunch of tin hat whackos.
(no offense to any tin hat whackos out there, I'm just posting my opinion)



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 06:08 PM
link   
There's a problem with the "Tin Hat" stereotype.

Firstly, it is abused in many cases. By maligning the person, they seek to malign the ideas presented by the person. It's a classic case of "Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself."
www.csun.edu...

The position relies heavily on
"Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false."
www.csun.edu...
Which is not to say that all positions don't rely on it (since they do!), but to point out that there is literally no completely superior position you can maintain in such an instance. The debate of life on Mars or the Moon, is an argument to ignorance, regardless of the side you take, as long as you cannot go there personally and bring back/post evidence of your own for your own position. Literally, there are no winning positions on this subject. Until further notice, you are as much in the dark as the guy with a tin foil visor.

The position also relies heavily on
Argumentum ad logicam (argument to logic). This is the fallacy of assuming that something is false simply because a proof or argument that someone has offered for it is invalid; this reasoning is fallacious because there may be another proof or argument that successfully supports the proposition.
www.csun.edu...
Since you don't know the full story, you have no way of knowing if it is logical or not.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by josephus maximus
 


And it is my theory that it is John's intention to do just that, to make us all look like tinfoil wackos, because some of us are actually getting close to uncovering some truths we are not supposed to know.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by uberarcanist
reply to post by josephus maximus
 


And it is my theory that it is John's intention to do just that, to make us all look like tinfoil wackos, because some of us are actually getting close to uncovering some truths we are not supposed to know.


What exactly is a tinfoil wacko, anyway?
Let's examine the implications.

A tin foil hat wacko is someone who, apparently, disagrees or has other theories that don't follow the mainstream thoughts or theories on the same subjects. This means every innovation and scientific discovery that changed the status quo before it, was the result of a tinfoil wacko at work.

Toss out the textbooks folks. They're full of tin foil.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join