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.

 

Lear a CIA agent?

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Some of the John's claims, however, contradict themselves anad can't possibly be true. If you throw a few giant soul-catching machines and a huge alien reactor on the Moon (no proof whatsoever), quite a few people will start dismissing both the message and the messenger as maybe a "believer" who's not worth believeing. And here's what happens, the idea of alternative research becomes discredited. If John was tasked with generating a lot of information noise to mask the signal, he's doing a crack job.


Or you could see it the other way... if someone was to generate a lot of disinfo, why tell a story too unbelievable to be true? Wouldnt it be better to mix lies and truths to get people away from the truth, but remain in the "believable" area?

I dont think its a clear cut case. He could be a disinfo agent, or not. The fact that his story is so unlikely actually adds to the case that he is not a disinfo agent. Or it could be his cover. "Why tell a unbelievable story if I was a disinfo agent?"

Interesting isnt it?




[edit on 14-11-2007 by Copernicus]




posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by dahl
but you gotta agree if any one else said what he says he would be banned, especially if he had no real evidence to his claim.


Sorry, but I've just got to call you out on this one. Can anyone show me where someone was banned based upon their far-out beliefs? Anyone? Bueller?

You get banned for your behavior not your beliefs. Is this not obvious to everyone?

If people start getting banned for their beliefs, who's going to be the final arbiter on which beliefs constitute "bannable offenses"?

You can be as "out there" as you want. Just don't create fake evidence. Or be obnoxious or offensive or personally attack someone. And believe me, it's as hard for me as anyone. [Not with Lear, but there are those I judiciously avoid interacting with because it's a pointless road to frustration.]



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeahright
You can be as "out there" as you want. Just don't create fake evidence.


How about no evidence? How's that in your book?

You maed good points in your post



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
How about no evidence? How's that in your book?


We may be getting a bit off-topic, but I'll reply. Naturally I'd prefer to have evidence. But go through any random number of threads and there are plenty with absolutely -0- evidence beyond an anecdotal accounting. Do we want to eliminate those? I don't think so.

And as far as "evidence" goes, there's a wide expanse of opinion as to what constitutes "evidence". Evidence in and of itself doesn't prove anything anyway. Check out a courtroom sometime. Piles of evidence, but someone still needs to make a subjective call about what it all means.

You could have the biggest steaming pile of evidence ever, and you'd still get huge divergence on the interpretation.

Fun, tho ain't it?



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Thanks for your reply!


Originally posted by yeahright
Naturally I'd prefer to have evidence. But go through any random number of threads and there are plenty with absolutely -0- evidence beyond an anecdotal accounting. Do we want to eliminate those? I don't think so.


What if it doesn't even have anecdotal accounting to back it up?

Example 1 (anecdotal):
Black-Eyed-Kids (BEK). Some people claim they saw those. I can't prove they didn't, and I won't attempt to. Fine.

Example 2 (no anecdotal):
Light color ejecta in a particular spot on the surface of the Moon. Conical shape, looks indeed somewhat unusual. Claim: it's a giant alien power generator. Is it "anecdotal"? I don't think so. I call it baseless and without merit.

Example 3 (anecdotal):
Strange flashes on the WTC towers before the collape indicate it was a demolition. I personally have other explanation(s), particularly that I saw the collapse myself (from safe distance), but hey, one can say they saw flashes. Fine.

Example 4 (false anecdotal):
Secret military space station was launched from Melville island, and space shuttle secretly docked with it last week under pretense of supplying the ISS. Fact is, the inclination of anything launched from Melville Island or most other suggested locations will be so wildly different from the inclination of the ISS that such maneuver is impossible. I call it false anecdotal because it contradicts verifiable facts.

Now, try to correlate the above examples with what you see on the JL board vs other boards.



And as far as "evidence" goes, there's a wide expanse of opinion as to what constitutes "evidence". Evidence in and of itself doesn't prove anything anyway. Check out a courtroom sometime. Piles of evidence, but someone still needs to make a subjective call about what it all means.


Funny you should say that, because I recently served on Grand Jury for a whole month!

If a suspect were to claim that it was a UFO that struck down the bank teller during that robbery, with a positron beam, I'm sure we'd demand from the DA that a psychiatric expert testify.

[edit on 14-11-2007 by buddhasystem]



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


I take absolutely no issue with your analysis. It's all opinion and theory and theory about opinion and opinion about theory. This is what constitutes discussion.

Anyone that has disagreement with Lear's opinions and theories are not only not excluded from the discussion, but I hope they feel encouraged to participate. As long as the disagreement doesn't violate the T&C, I don't think anyone need feel constrained.

Abusiveness and name calling are a nono. Countering with facts (or alternative opinions) is a good thing. There's a member here, yfxxx (for example), who you'll see on a lot of Lear threads who I think does an admirable job of presenting a view contrary to Lear's. I've never seen him hindered.

Lear draws a lot of attention, and I think it gets under a lot of people's skin that he does. Which is too bad.

But I think we need to be accomodating to different viewpoints, even the outlandish ones. Doesn't mean we shouldn't question, analyze, and draw conclusions.

It's my opinion that whatever is going on is probably more outlandish than you can even conceive. And there are people out there that may very well have a piece to the puzzle that won't come forward for fear of ridicule. If nothing else, Lear's presence here demonstrates that we're members of a site that can entertain alternative theories and welcome without ridicule people that have experiences and information which are way outside the mainstream.



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeahright
It's my opinion that whatever is going on is probably more outlandish than you can even conceive.


I personally don't see enough evidence to support that, but hey, any major religion has the same problem.


And there are people out there that may very well have a piece to the puzzle that won't come forward for fear of ridicule.


That's what I'm saying. If the unusual and the alternative is sufficiently discredited (and there are members of ATS whose opinion is that JL does a fine job of that), they won't come forward.


If nothing else, Lear's presence here demonstrates that we're members of a site that can entertain alternative theories and welcome without ridicule people that have experiences and information which are way outside the mainstream.


Thing is, I can claim that the redacted portions of the White House satellite images contain powerful hologram generators and that the real White House has long since been replaced by a biodome habitated by alien leaders. Their security is tight... That guy who crashed his light plane on the lawn there was actually trying to destroy the biodome! And on and on and on. Heck, it may be even entertaining for some, but in essense such writing would represent information noise and unnecesary garbage. And that's my point.



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Okay here's my last word on this topic (promise) and I'll allow you the final word concerning my contribution to this thread (if you want it).

I don't think we disagree about anything other than methodology, and maybe not even that.

If you can counter a preposterous theory with logic and fact, go for it. Vigorously. The only point I'm making is that I don't think we should be censoring, banning, or otherwise stifling alternative theories no matter how out there they are. Counter them, by all means. But pissing and moaning about someone else (not saying YOU are) being able to participate because you don't agree or think their view is absurd isn't going to get very far.

I understand the topic (UFOs aliens etc) stirs up a whole lot of emotion, especially amongst those that are "experiencers" and those who have devoted a great many years researching the topics and view Lear (and others) as making a mockery of the subject.

But the best way (IMHO) to counter that is with reasoned argument, not censorship. I'd rather have the goofy stuff here in one easy to access repository where it can be countered, than scattered willy-nilly here there and everywhere where it's tougher to refute.

Just my final $0.02.



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 11:13 AM
link   
admin action:

Formerly banned member's posts have been removed.

Springer...



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeahright
If you can counter a preposterous theory with logic and fact, go for it. Vigorously.


But therein lies the problem. Sound logic and fact is poo-poo'd, totally ignored, or countered with simply more fanciful "what-ifs".

It becomes incredibly frustrating to have sound arguments totally blown off, while being told that we are just an ignorant bunch of close-minded skeptics.

Those that support the views and opinions of J. Lear, repeatedly respond with "well, you're just wrong". And we're supposed to swallow that?



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by redmage
reply to post by mentalempire
 


Here for less than a week and you're already throwing down the gauntlet? You wouldn't happen to be a formerly banned member returning to raise a lil' ruckus, would ya?


Good sleuthing redmage. Now, I wonder if true to his word he'll re-register under another phony moniker. Probably m. midget.
I guess we'll know when we start to see the flames again.
I don't think watching the ip addresses will help if the guy's from a large-ish town or city.
So. We'll be waiting for you mental.

Thanks again red.



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 11:48 AM
link   
I do NOt believe that John Lear is in any way connected to the CIA, except perhaps he may have friends in intel who give him info: Thats great!! We benefit from the knowledge and we can all decide how much of John's personal beliefs to agree with or not.

I for one believe that John is right about a great deal of what he believes, but I am not sold on the ' soul catcher ' thing at all. I do believe that John is pretty radical in his beliefs and they challenge a lot of people, but remember that in the future we may very well find out that a great deal of the things that we call' far out ' now may indeed be very much a pertinent and valuable truth once exposed and comprehended.

I think that a man with Mr. Lears credentials deserves respect, and a chance to espose his views without being trampled beneath the wheels of doubt and skepticism. If he is right about only a fraction of his views, it still represents a great deal of new territory to explore and many topics of interest for a long time to come. I for one am very glad that he chooses to spend a great deal of his time here on ATS, and I hope that he will keep on making waves and brining new things to light.



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raoul Duke
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Yeah, but I look at John Lear as like an investigative journalist with unnamed sources. I assume he's got some contacts to the black budget world, and folks who already know what disclosure will entail if it ever occurs.


Look, it's not about outlandinsh claims per se. It's about:

(a) posting something that does not check against observable facts, such as the period of moon rotation (which would be different if the moon's mass was according to Lear); interpretation of the videotaped experiment when a feather and a hammer were dropped on the moon's surface (and fell accordingly to 1/6th grav and no atmosphere despite JL claiming otherwise) etc etc etc

(b) claiming things that are internally inconsistent: i.e. the US managed to put 8(!) super secert space stations in orbit, but somehow it must use the civilian craft, the Shuttle, to resupply those. In order to use the Shuttle for that purpose, it had to be fit with alien technology. Gosh, if you have that technology I supppose you could dispense with the Shuttle altogether, in the resupply missions!



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem


Frankly, I find your theory more ridiculous than anything John has ever said, big soul machine on the moon included.


No, the soul macine gets the prize.

Discalimer: I would like to apply the same disclaimer as John does. All or part of what I say may not be true and I could be easily disinformed.


Look. All John is doing is using Arthur C. Clarke logic, and extrapolating to the here and now, to wit:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke, "Profiles of The Future "

and to a lesser extent:

"To predict the future we need logic, but we also need faith and imagination, which can sometimes defy logic itself." — Arthur C. Clarke, Profiles of the Future

A big soul catcher on the moon? Holograms?
Read the above. Who's to say ?
John is just stretching his mind a bit. Albeit, in public. You are free to stretch yours as well along with him, or simply to ignore him and continue along the well trodden path of 'mainstream science' which knows everything, right ?
Hey, 'mainstream science' sorta reminds me of another 'mainstream' .
Care to guess what that is?

It's the old axiom. 'The more I learn, the more I realize what I don't know'.
John is giving lessons in this.
Pretty brave guy if you ask me.



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by plug_pray
William Cooper in Behold a pale horse refers to John Lear as being a CIA agent....


[deleted]
Warnings for one-line or short responses
Do Not Circumvent the Automatic Censors

[edit on 11-14-2007 by worldwatcher]



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Hey John,
It seems the CIA owes you some back pay then huh ??? To think you have been a CIA agent all these years and you never knew it !!





I needed a laugh today !




posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 12:24 PM
link   
John Lear a CIA agent


it is possible however I am of the opinion that much of the information leaves to much untied i.e. to much room for free thinking, I believe that the best disinformation is disinformation that leaves no room for interpretation..

not sure what it is really called but I call it prepositional thinking or prepositional analysis. being that a preposition usually relates temporal, spacial, or logical relationship of its object to rest of the sentence. We can do the same while disseminating information we have to look at and explain logically how the information ties together or relates to the subject event or occasion that we are researching..

That being said John Lear appears to be a fine researcher and a great asset to the ATS community.

Having never spoken to John personally I could not make a statement about the truth or lack of truth in the information he presents to us but I do enjoy the information none the less..

I would also encourage everyone to keep in mind that a successful dis info agent would surely be one that no one knew or thought could possibly in a million years be a dis info agent, one that has gained the respect or trust of a given community an insider if you will...or better yet one that doesn't even know they are a dis info agent..As well I would be cautious to trust or respect one who has a lot of information to feed you with as this cold potentially keep you busy as the truth went sailing past waiving as a courtesy

I have nothing to back this up but do believe that part of the design of government agencies and the information and disinformation programs is to drive one to the edge of sanity in their search after all there is some information out there that is just to much for any one person and if you try to take it all in your fuzzy little heads could explode..


Respectfully
GEO

[edit on 11/14/2007 by geocom]

[edit on 11/14/2007 by geocom]



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by geocom
That being said John Lear appears to be a fine researcher and a great asset to the ATS community.


Dear Geo,

I've seen many researches in my life. IMHO, a person who's making statement which flatly contradict reliably observable facts does not qualify as such.



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by MrPenny
 



If it's like beating your head against the wall (which it would be to me if I were trying to debunk this stuff with logic) why not walk away from the wall?

If you don't bother wasting time trying to overcome that which can't be overcome (people's enjoyment of discussing the far out) you won't have to "swallow" anything.


Springer...



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Springer
 


Why do I get the feeling you watch for my posts in order to keep tabs on me? Am I being rude? Vulgar? What the heck is it? Is it simply paranoia? I see posts from other members that a very close to, or identical to, the post that finally got Access Denied banned, yet no response from you. I make an observation, and there you are. Be honest with me.




top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join