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.

 

The John Lear Hologram Challenge

page: 15
7
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrPenny
reply to post by Springer
 



And please, I've said it before and I've seen moderators berate others for failing to use screen names properly.......its "MrPenny", not "Mr. Penny".

Toodles,



Dam sorry about misspelling your screen name mate.

Do what you must, learn the social graces and come back when you discover "decorum" is simply being courteous (although that had nothing to do with my honest question) and is never a "moving target".


Toodles then...

Springer...




posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Chorlton
 


If you wish to discuss the points made by any member of a forum, you likely will want to state specifically WHY you disagree. It is usually much easier to state why sans words and phrases such as "laughable", "comical", "poorly thought out", etc. This is what is known as harsh criticism and is not normally used in polite society. It is usually reserved for concepts and dialogue in which one person or another is personally invested (such as in business, or when world leaders meet and discuss).

Think of it like this: if you were discussing religion with a priest, would you call his ideas "laughable" even though they are no less provable? if you would, then perhaps you are incapable of polite human interaction....but i don't believe that is so with you, Chorlton/MrPenny.

And playing the part of victim doesn't garner much additional support. I am sure you understand, underneath the feign victims statement, that decorum is not a moving target. If you ever wonder if your statements cross the line, employ the "Priest Test" i provided above.


Regarding Mr. Lear's hologram theory....it would seem that the concept of creating holographic scenery is not that new at all.

Paint The Night

Yes, this has been shown earlier in this thread, but the actual powerpoint was unavailable at the time. A little outdated as far as technology goes....but consider that this program was started over 10 years ago (before the odd and untimely death of Muuss).

Strangely, I can't find much since 2005 that is published. If anyone does, please share. I am willing to bet that the project changed once Muuss died...any leads would be appreciated.



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
Chorlton, Mr. Penney, et-al:

What is it about these threads that you can't ignore them? It's obvious you have nothing but contempt for those who enjoy the speculation and discussion, the topics themselves and the very ideas behind them.
I can't figure out why you keep participating in them.

Springer...


OK Long reply. You asked. Ill put my side.

We call it discussion. too, its just that when people post ridiculous claims and we respond, some only see what we do wrong and not what we responded to................ You seem to think it OK for some people to post totally unproven speculation and call it fact then get curious when those ideas are ridiculed?.
Should those ridiculous claims and speculations simply be ignored? some would say yes. I and others say no.
BUT
What has to be well noted here is that if people like myself and others dont speak up then there is no counter argument against ridiculous claims and people will become immune to the idea that Holograms (in this case) is a ridicuous theorem and start to believe it is the norm. Its the same in other threads. If no one says anything then people will eventually start thinking that what is being put forward as speculation is fact, due to the way it is put over.
Just look, as an example, at The Dulce Papers. Not a scrap of evidence or proof or anything, yet because there was nowhere to debunk it when it originally came out it, it is now believed by a wide range of people as fact.

Speculation is fine, but when that speculation is put over as fact thats what gets my back up.
On a serious note here, You also seem to miss the fact that when any refutation of certain people's ideas are made by us, THEIR responses also contain an awfull lot of abuse and contempt, usualy intended to elicit a contemptuous response. THAT usually gets missed and we get a slap.
So tell me, how come you can see contempt from some yet miss the contempt and deliberate baiting by others?, as my old mum used to say, "you can see a flea on one persons back but not an elephant on anothers"

At 58 Ive been around the world a few times and seen a lot of things that others havent. I question everything, especially those people who say things as fact when they have no scientific background or Empirical evidence to back up what they say. There are some here who state things as fact then use disparate evidence to try and back it up and when that is pointed out they simply ignore it and carry on, on their slow bumbling path into ignorance.

There is also the possibility of culture differences here. What you and others see as an insult, I see as a gentle dig in the ribs. What you see as contempt, I see as a simple riposte. This is an International Forum and you cant decide what is right and wrong by the standards of one country.

In this world there has to be opposites. It couldnt exist without that.

If you dont want me on your Forum (and you have made it clear in the past you dont) Then say the word and Ill go.

But what makes this board so good is the fencing, is the riposte, is the right to put ones opinion over and take a dig at others ideas.
I would suggest that those people who are crying into their beer about mine and others responses to their posts consider what they posted in the first place, we are being asked why we do what we do, so why not ask the people who make preposterous and outrageous posts why they ake the posts they do?. They will probably say its because they believe in what they post. Well sir, so do we.
Voltaire said it all for me. “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Do what you will.



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Chorlton
 


I logged in just to say.....Chorlton could not have expressed the thoughts any better than I could have. He is dead on with my own attitude.

Unfortunately, being told by a site co-owner to "learn the social graces", is in my estimation, insulting.

Good day,



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrPenny
reply to post by Chorlton
 


I logged in just to say.....Chorlton could not have expressed the thoughts any better than I could have. He is dead on with my own attitude.

I'll second that. Bravo Chortlon! The sign on the front door says "Deny Ignorance"... it works both ways.


Originally posted by MrPenny

Unfortunately, being told by a site co-owner to "learn the social graces", is in my estimation, insulting.

Indeed but it's Springer’s sandbox we're playing in and his rules… when he says “love it or leave it” he’s not kidding. It’s like the sign you see hanging in some bosses offices… “The beatings will continue until morale improves.”



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Chorlton
 


Well said, Chorlton! That pretty much sums up my own attitude here. People can speculate all day long as much as they like, but when things are presented to all intents and purposes as facts, that fly straight into the face of well-established knowledge in my area of expertise, I feel free to say so.

Regards
yf



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 02:09 PM
link   
And I'll Third it

A conspiracy master should be good at explaining conspiracies, not just making them up.

15 pages and counting........

WHY?



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 02:53 PM
link   
IIB,

A more interesting question might be why people continue to believe the myth that John Lear's opinions are important. I haven't read much of anything in this forum from John Lear that would make be believe he has any special expertise or knowledge re 9/11, or holograms, or anything else that he claims to have special knowledge of. In fact, I would suggest that Lear's opinions epitomize the opposite of the Deny Ignorance credo of ATS.

I would suggest waiting for Lear to come up with some sort of substantive contribution backed by solid reasoning and evidence before raising him any further on the perplexing ATS pedestal on which he resides.



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 05:47 PM
link   
If anyone has difficulty understanding why John Lear does indeed have special insights pertaining to 9-11 then they must either be new here at ATS (and not read enough of his posts) or they have difficulty understanding the English language.

In case someone hasn’t noticed, the linchpin to 9-11 is aero-planes. And just in case someone hasn’t caught this either, John Lear has piloted a few of those in his lifetime. He mentioned the exact figure in a post recently, it was well above 100 (!!) different types of aircraft. Which is far more than any of us can even list off the top of our heads.

Still, some refuse to listen or care what John Lear says, no matter how specific he gets. E. g. this counterargument of-an-engine-being-found at the WTC’s keeps popping up — like a bad cold. And John has advised repeatedly that that engine was a small CFM56 from a Boeing 737 and not a much larger CF-6 from a Boeing 767. John also is personally familiar with Chick Burlingame, the Captain of flight AA77 (Pentagon ‘crash’) and believes that as a personal friend of Dick Cheney’s he was (is) a likely accomplice in the 9-11 operation.

That John is even allowed to write on ATS is amazing. He must still have (powerful) friends/professional contacts in ‘high places’ who protect him. It also seems that this administration has been surprisingly benign about not ‘silencing’ (waxing) people ‘in the know’. As hard as it is to imagine but possibly much more so (tolerant of dissension) than previous ones have been. Under the Clintons (Bill or Billary) he would have had a tag on his toe before the day is over.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 05:47 PM
link   
[edit on 10/8/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
If anyone has difficulty understanding why John Lear does indeed have special insights pertaining to 9-11 then they must either be new here at ATS (and not read enough of his posts) or they have difficulty understanding the English language.

In case someone hasn’t noticed, the linchpin to 9-11 is aero-planes. And just in case someone hasn’t caught this either, John Lear has piloted a few of those in his lifetime. He mentioned the exact figure in a post recently, it was well above 100 (!!) different types of aircraft. Which is far more than any of us can even list off the top of our heads.

Yep the man was a pilot.
But does that fact give him any insight into 360 degree holography on a scale never before seen? Nope.

As for the engine. I doubt even the people that made the engine could tell what is was from a photo, and as stated previously, how did they manage to get it in situ without anyone seeing it?. Thats a heavy lump of metal and a bit difficult to sort of roll off the back of a lorry without people seeing it.
John makes incredible impossible claims about a lot of things, his latest being that the US bought Australia from the Australians, but many if not most of his claims simply dont have any credibility, so his claim about the engine is probably just another in his long line of stories.

By the way John. Could you let me know the name of the man that bought Australia as I want to sell him the Tower of London and the Eiffel Tower



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods
 


John Lear has shown no more special insights into 9/11 than my 9-year old. The one insight that you claim he pointed out, the engine found on the street in NY, defies all logic and reasoning.

According to Lear, the government used futuristic holographic projectors combined with charges planted in the outline of two planes on the outsides of the two WTCs to simulate two plane crashes into the buildings.

Then, while hundreds on people on the streets of NY weren't paying attention, the secret government agents pulled up to the curb and dumped off the incorrect engine, still smoldering.

Yeah, that scenario makes sense... NOT.

Point 2:

You mention that Lear has picked out Charles F. "Chic" Burlingame III as a likely accessory to mass murder. In my opinion, this is a disgusting and despicable accusation on Lear's part. There is little, if anything, more abhorrent than defaming the name of one of the victims of 9/11, an ex-military pilot, as a co-conspirator to the murder of thousands of American civilians, not to mention a military attack on the U.S. Pentagon.

If I was a member of Burlingame's family, I would hire a lawyer in Las Vegas tomorrow and sue Lear for defamation and slander. There's no excuse to drag somebody's name into the mud for no other purpose than to get attention, and based on no other evidence than the voices inside your head.

Even when you go beyond the disgusting accusation against Burlingame, Lear's assertion makes absolutely ZERO sense. If there was no freakin' plane, then Burlingame couldn't be piloting a plane that didn't exist, could he?

Are there any other profound insights that I've missed?

If there was a government conspiracy behind 9/11, the perps couldn't have asked for anything better than having Lear be one of the faces of the truth movement.

Oh... and did you catch his insightful motive for 9/11? So the black ops in the government could control the trillion dollar opium industry in order to finance their secret space program.

Seriously, you should be embarrassed to make any claims that Lear has posted any insights into 9/11. Fantasies maybe. Insights? I don't think so.



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chorlton
Yep the man was a pilot.
But does that fact give him any insight into 360 degree holography on a scale never before seen? Nope.


Nope, it doesn’t make him an expert on holography. But it does make him an eight-hundred pound of a gorilla authority on no-plane theories. However you don’t give him respect there either. When you should. Holograms or not, John Lear reinforces empirically with his aviation insights what no-planers theorize — that there were no passenger jet crashes on 9-11.

I’m wildly guessing here, but for John Lear — being a very technical person — maybe holograms are his way of explaining all the eyewitness accounts. When it is possible that this quest of his for a scientific solution to the 9-11 live observations underestimates the innate propensity of human nature to see things as they ain’t — or flat out lie.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by robert z
Even when you go beyond the disgusting accusation against Burlingame, Lear's assertion makes absolutely ZERO sense. If there was no freakin' plane, then Burlingame couldn't be piloting a plane that didn't exist, could he?

Are there any other profound insights that I've missed?


Yes, there are. Chick Burlingame didn’t sell his state of being, he only sold his name. He never piloted AA77 for real, only on paper. And if you were his family of course you’d never sue. You’d lie real low and remove yourself from the public as far as possible. But in defense of the names on those 9-11 passenger lists, the ones that were genuine, they did it ‘for Budda and country’ (and money too).

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Mr. Lear is a pilot with tons of experience. That does not make him a crash investigator or a forensics expert. Most give him his due in regards to his field of expertise (piloting aircraft).

If anyone has seen slow motion video of missiles impacting a target ( tanks or concrete walls) it would add some insight to what happens during high speed impacts.

Thanks for posting



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

Yes, there are. Chick Burlingame didn’t sell his state of being, he only sold his name. He never piloted AA77 for real, only on paper. And if you were his family of course you’d never sue. You’d lie real low and remove yourself from the public as far as possible. But in defense of the names on those 9-11 passenger lists, the ones that were genuine, they did it ‘for Budda and country’ (and money too).

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



So your claim is that Burlingame sold his name to be used as part of the Flight 77 conspiracy to murder hundreds of people? And that his family is in on this murderous conspiracy with him, and they did it for money?

And what exactly is your evidence to substantiate this? Lear's imagination?

In my opinion, your post, fueled by Lear's unsubstantiated and despicable claims, exemplify the very worst, not only of the so-called truth movement, but of human nature itself. You are willing to make outlandish, unsubstantiated, vile accusations against a pilot who served his country and his family with ZERO evidence to support such accusations, all for a little attention-whore-like notoriety on an internet site.

You really bring nothing substantive to the discussion. You do realize that, right?



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Sr71b:

Mr. Lear is a pilot with tons of experience. That does not make him a crash investigator or a forensics expert.


Correct. But people like US Air Force Colonel George Nelson are (experienced airplane crash investigators). And he says “The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft.”.
We’ve linked this site many-a-times here on ATS, but it can never be shown enough.
PatriotsQuestion911.Com: patriotsquestion911.com...


Robert z:

And what exactly is your evidence to substantiate this? Lear's imagination?


Naw. No plane having crashed at the Pentagon and mainstream media still publishing flight info for this non-event is what’s fueling my suspicions. But you’re right, AA77 still could have existed and ended up ‘elsewhere’.

Robert z:

You really bring nothing substantive to the discussion. You do realize that, right?
Agreed. I have no new info for veteran ATS 9-11 forum participants. But there may be some newbies who need to be ‘brought up to speed’.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by 23432
Here is a video of Tom Bearden , dated 1988 ; talking about the foundation technology for such a holographic show .

uk.youtube.com...

I have found the holographic theory to be a rather complicated one.



Dear 23432,

Thanks for the link to the Bearden vids. Yes, it's very complicated; "Time Reversed Waves," "Pumped Full Wave Mixing," a new "general solution?" Amazing stuff and frankly way over my head. And that was 20 years ago... What can they do today?

At any rate, did you catch the last sentence? Here it is:

Mr. Bearden:

Using pumped full wave mixing, as much energy as one desires can be placed into the distant hologram.


This raises the interesting speculation that not only could the hologram present a visual image, it could also pack a powerful destructive force.



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by GreenFloyd
At any rate, did you catch the last sentence? Here it is:

Mr. Bearden:

Using pumped full wave mixing, as much energy as one desires can be placed into the distant hologram.


This raises the interesting speculation that not only could the hologram present a visual image, it could also pack a powerful destructive force.


Hey nice code usage.


That would certainly be a scary reality. Imagine arrays of satellites bombarding the below with monstrous demon looking hologram projections that actually smash and maim. Shock & Awe. Space Age Terrorism.

But I'm skeptical of such. Laser beams are one thing. Weather control is beyond that. Forceful holograms, I don't know now. Maybe one day, but even still I have doubts that it wouldn't be obvious that it was a hologram... I mean a nice solid looking plane or whatever. Something like that we could expect for it to have a sort of 'ghost' appearance.

You know many of you would probably be surprised with all of my DEW 9/11 skepticism that directed energy space weapons are one of my knacks. Even the more far out weather control, which is related, is a concern of mine. But you see I don't see them getting too far with these platforms until omnipotent artificial intelligence is achieved and then is deeply integrated into science R&D. From there, all of the advanced technologies you can dream of, that is whatever is actually possible, will be possible. The only problem is by then the AI will be "god on earth".

AI will be the Enabler.

And to think it wll just be a few years from today right now when this process begins to kick into overdrive. That's my main fight. For a glimpse into this world I speak of, including space based energy weapons, take a gander at my iXo video:


Google Video Link

Note: All the text and visual materials are direct from government/military sources. Looks much better in the google window.

But don't distract the conversation here, it can go way off topic. Thread for iXo discussion:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 8-10-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by robert z perplexing ATS pedestal on which he resides.


Doing a search of About John Lear thread shows you the answer to that... have you ever counted the threads started by anti John people?


They must love him a lot to show so much support... I am pretty sure he doesn't pay them for the promotion...

Well I DID say 'pretty' sure



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join