Originally posted by Mr Penny
So I will avoid "scathing". I have no problem with nutjobs posting whatever they want to on the Internet. I do expect to be able to freely express my own opinion on the content; without being referred to as "ignorant", "in the dark", or worse still....have my username perverted into some childish jibe.

Answer me this Mr Penny, and I am trusting you will be totally honest with yourself and me in your reply...

Imagine you were a man who had seen most of the world, flown most of the aircraft possible to fly, were privy to BIZARRE meetings between your own "global industry captain" father and some of the most powerful men on the planet and learned some REALLY BIZARRE things were being discussed in these ultra high level meetings.

Imagine you had experienced more "REAL weirdness" (like the meetings with dad, stories from trusted friends of totally WAY OUT THERE things) than the average 1000 people experience in their single lifetime and decided to question everything and postulate your OWN theories about what's really happening only to be vehemently attacked, non stop, by a handful of people who, by their own admission, have not had anywhere near the exposure to what you have seen/heard that has raised these questions/caused you to postulate these theories in your mind?

AND

Through all of it you have never once asked for, much less demanded, ANYONE believe or buy a single thing from you, you've never wanted anything but friendly conversation about your "wild ideas" in the hope others may have thought/experienced the same or similar things and might bring more pieces of your puzzle to be examined to the table, with the only request being that those who discuss them with you do so in the spirit of the possibility that they "may be real" so as to further the discussion and avoid wasting time on the badgering for evidence, reality, or scientific method since you've already stated that you have no proof, you have no sanction but REALLY WANT to discuss the possibilities that YOU (and maybe ONLY you believe) are true for whatever reason, with those who are willing to discuss them, but a small group of people who seem to be incapable of allowing this to happen and will stop at nothing to circumvent you and those who wish to discuss these wild ideas, ceaselessly interject their demands for proof or reasoning that fits THEIR reality continue to derail the discussions into a tit for tat argument... Would you not get frustrated?

Especially considering there are thousands of people who really want to have the discussion but maybe won't because they don't want to deal with the rude few who, for whatever reason, seem hell bent on stopping it by way of ridicule and demands for already admitted non existent evidence and proof?

Would you not get a little "snippy" too?

Springer...


[edit on 11-11-2007 by Springer]

I just want to say thank you Springer for stepping in and trying to make them understand. I do spend a lot of my time in the John Lear threads but often get angry and frustrated when there is a small mob of people that are hell bent on attacking John Lear and Zorgon.

Don't get me wrong, we do need the skeptics here. But there is a fine line between skeptics and people who are just out there to make it a mission to discredit the OP no matter what. We have a lot of those people here on ATS not just in the John Lear threads. It is a problem because it does prevent the discussion of topic from moving forward.

Originally posted by Essan
John, if I may ask a question raised in the BAUT forum: how do we know when the Space Shuttle docks with and departs the Space Station? If we're relying on NASA for this info then for all we know the SS could dock a day earlier or a day later than they're telling us. Indeed, how do we know it docks at the ISS at all?

I've already questioned him on that. You won't get straight answer.
He listens to Nasa's feed and believes when they tell him it docks yet everything else they say is cover up.

Originally posted by Essan

John, if I may ask a question raised in the BAUT forum: how do we know when the Space Shuttle docks with and departs the Space Station? If we're relying on NASA for this info then for all we know the SS could dock a day earlier or a day later than they're telling us. Indeed, how do we know it docks at the ISS at all?

Thanks for the post Essan. You are correct. All we know is what NAZA tells us. We don't know that the videos they show us are the truth. Even if we look up and see a bright light approaching, leaving or docked to the ISS we don't know for sure if that is the Space Shuttle. I can think of several ways to fake that.

NAZA has been busy defrauding the American people since its inception in 1958 so by now they are pretty good at it.

Thanks for the post.

O.K. Zorgon, I'll walk into your trap, lol....some of those pictures do not appear to be the ISS at all, care to clarify?

And I hope your source is credible and verifiable.

Originally posted by Springer
Imagine you were a man who had seen most of the world, flown most of the aircraft possible to fly, were privy to BIZARRE meetings between your own "global industry captain" father and some of the most powerful men on the planet and learned some REALLY BIZARRE things were being discussed in these ultra high level meetings.

Yeah imagine that… if only that were true and this man had any REAL evidence to back up his claims.

Springer my man we need to talk in private… I’m really starting to worry about you.

Originally posted by Springer
Imagine you had experienced more "REAL weirdness" (like the meetings with dad, stories from trusted friends of totally WAY OUT THERE things) than the average 1000 people experience in their single lifetime and decided to question everything and postulate your OWN theories about what's really happening only to be vehemently attacked, non stop, by a handful of people who, by their own admission, have not had anywhere near the exposure to what you have seen/heard that has raised these questions/caused you to postulate these theories in your mind?

Yeah imagine that… the first mistake is assuming he’s been ”exposed” to any legitimate sources and information simply because he claims and believes he was… in fact most of the stuff he believes is based on other people’s claims and theories that have long since been debunked as hoaxes or meanderings of the misinformed, mistaken, and mentally ill.

If John Lear had an Aviary name surely it would be Parrot

Originally posted by Springer
The fact he had access to people most never get near and he talked to anyone he could in an attempt to gain more information on what he suspected the reality was is, IMHO, what interests most people who like to discuss these things with John.

That’s funny because based on everything he’s said I would venture to guess that over the course of my lifetime I’ve had (and continue to have) FAR more access to people in a position to know the “truth” than John Lear could ever dream of and yet not ONE of these people has EVER said anything to me about aliens eating humans in underground bases, reverse engineered alien technology, or that we’ve been secretly mining the moon… go figure.

(oh right I forgot, I’m the one who’s the “disinformation” agent around here)

Originally posted by Springer
Its not whether the subjects are real it's whether they COULD BE.

Please tell me Mark, do you honestly and seriously believe that John believes the stuff he posts are only POSSIBILITIES???

Case in point, I DARE John to unequivocally state for the record (and more importantly his "fan" club) all of the following:

1. All of his claims are only possibilities.
2. He could be completely misinformed.
3. All of what he believes might not be true.

Furthermore, if John refuses to accept this challenge, will you then drop this nonsense about all this only being about “possibilities” and his “beliefs”? (regardless of what he “claims”)

Originally posted by Springer
I know you can't abide that, that's your choice, but I won't allow you or anyone else to keep those who DO want to discuss the far out, crazy, insane POSSIBILITIES from doing so through badgering, trolling, name calling, etc...

Yes well that much I know is true…

Later,

AD

Originally posted by zorgon
But I have also seen others... Like this one

Nice pictures, Zorgon.

What other data can you supply with them? Dates taken, etc? I wouldn't be surprised if you couldn't supply anything more than just the pictures though. It makes me wonder what else is up there that we don't know about.

This thread is still about Discovery and the ISS, instead of bashing johnlear in his own forum, right?

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by PartChimp

Mr. Lear; a bit off topic, but could you tell me why you call NASA "NAZA"? Is it a play on the word nazi, or something else?

Thanks for the post PartChimp and yes, it is a play on the word Nazi. Do you like it? I am quite pleased with myself and I hope it turns out that I was the first one to use this play on words but I doubt it. It must have been used many times before.

Is it just me or does anyone else find this new name for NASA offensive?

I believe NASA has done much for science and spaceflight. May be things are different today but that reference associating them (their belief and actions) with such a negative belief system (for most of the people in the world at that time) and the action taken by those whose supported it does not sit well with me. I typically overlook 99.9% of things like this though.

Yes, I know I can quit reading these threads if it bothers me.

I thought I would get feedback to determine if I am the only one who feels this way (mods included). Like I said, may be it's just my impression of what is meant.

Originally posted by Access Denied

Case in point, I DARE John to unequivocally state for the record (and more importantly his "fan" club) all of the following:

I don't need a dare AD, I have posted this in many ways and many times. I am more than happy to unequivocally state the following:

1. All of my claims are only possibilities.
2. I could be completely misinformed.
3. All of what I believe might not be true.

Furthermore, if John refuses to accept this challenge, will you then drop this nonsense about all this only being about “possibilities” and his “beliefs”? (regardless of what he “claims”)

AD, there would be no possible reason for me not to reaffirm the above.

Thanks for the post.

Originally posted by Springer
the spirit of the possibility that they "may be real" so as to further the discussion and avoid wasting time on the badgering for evidence, reality, or scientific method since you've already stated that you have no proof, you have no sanction but REALLY WANT to discuss the possibilities that YOU (and maybe ONLY you believe) are true for whatever reason, with those who are willing to discuss them, but a small group of people who seem to be incapable of allowing this to happen and will stop at nothing to circumvent you

Dear Mr. Springer,

let me speak for myself as I take exception with a lot of Mr. Lear says on this board. You see, I have no problem talking about far out theories that do not contradict observable facts. If somebody talks to aliens in their sleep, I might be curious about it or maybe crack a joke, but that's ok and I admit I can't really disprove such claims. Or, if an ancient drawing looks somewhat similar to an aircraft, I like to speculate that who knows, maybe there was a technology long since lost. That's also ok. More to the point, there are really strange facts coming of the large scale sky surverys in recent years, and discussing such matter promotes understanding of nature, as best we can, and is in the spirit of the motto of this board, which, if I remember correctly, is "deny ignorance".

Mr. Lear's arguments are in a large part of a completely different nature. He likes to invoke references to scientific method and cherry pick one or two hard to explain numbers to promote a theory. You can look up a few of the calculations he posted on the subject of lunar gravity. You see, Mr. Springer, Mr. Lear does not eschew physics when he can make it look like he's vindicated by it. He only does it when the real, observable facts do not fit his fantastical claims. I consider such selectivity ill suited for either presentation or discussion of any CT or any other theory. Kepler's laws and Newtonian mechanics, in a given application, can be wrong or right but both, simulataneously.

I'm also at odds with assigning an exceedingly rich context to admittedly interesting artifacats found in visual images. There may be a few features, for example, in images of the Moon, which are hard to explain. I totally agree with that. But statements like "it's a reactor 25km in diameter" are at least somewhat ridiculous. There is nothing at all that points in the direction of such interpretation. If there was a sample of lunar soil from that location with a slightly unusual concentration of certain isotopes, I'd be more than willing to theorize about a reactor. In absense of such, as I wrote, it looks more like an excrement of a giant creature from outer space than a reactor. Heck, I've seen the inside of a live nuclear reactor with my own eyes (my background is in nuclear science). According to you, Mr. Springer, life experiences count. Well, that's one.

One can come up with an infinite nubmer of catchy names for that crater, but such latitude in dealing with facts is, in my opinion, counterproductive in trying to deny ignorance.




[edit on 11-11-2007 by buddhasystem]