Lear a CIA agent?

reply to post by buddhasystem


buddha

I never stated that his research was accurate and just how accurate research is depends typically on your point of view after all the world was flat for centuries..
or was thought to be but as perspective changed so did the shape of the world

My intention was to point out that his information right or wrong was complete
in a fashion that supports the subjects he speaks of...

Respectfully
GEO

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Have you heard of the concept of a "cover"? JL has a credible story to go with the rest of what he says. Really fits in the CIA agent theory.

Yes I do. I still believe it's a foolish concept. John openly admits he worked for the CIA, he frequently mentions his personal life and who he knows. He's not a disinformation agent, that's ridiculous. John's here to state his opinions and beliefs based on the information he obtains from "higher-up" individuals. This doesn't mean he's right, it's possible he's being feed disinformation without him knowing.

Greetings Geo,

Originally posted by geocom
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

I never stated that his research was accurate and just how accurate research is depends typically on your point of view after all the world was flat for centuries..

I'm glad you brought this up because it illustrates an intersting point. As you know, even now there are believers in flat earth. Despite bazillion facts to the contrary. Would you say that their "research" had any degree of validity at all?

To GeeGee:

Lets abstract ourselves from the notion of "foolish" for a second and just say there are probable and less probably events.

When I weigh JL being a CIA dis-informer against the follwong propositions:

a) human souls are reprocessed on the Moon and injected back to Earth
b) most US spacecraft are fitted with a fully functional antigrav device
c) space shuttles can also cloak at will
d) mass of the Moon is twice the value traditionally quoted, and yet it's period of rotation is still 28 days against laws of physics

I'd rather go with JL working for CIA as the more likely explanation.

reply to post by buddhasystem


again I state that I was not claiming any data as valid or invalid only that the information presented backs up the point of view whether we choose to or not to believe is again a stance typically taken from a point of view or a bias internal or external which leans one way or another..

Having said that I would not discredit research slanting towards the world being flat nor would I credit any such stated research I personally like to review all of the information and make my own choice on the subject at hand

I guess what I am saying is that there is no point in presenting information as valid or invalid as all research allows room for extrapolation of facts in a biased manner.

as an example I give you the Pharmaceutical companies vs. the FDA
the data extrapolated or gleaned from the same data sets by these two opposing research vessels is almost always different however the same data is present for the reading I don't believe that this makes either claim valid or invalid providing that the information to back up the claim as stated can be found in the conclusion and references the same set or sets of data...

anyway just another way of looking at things

Respectfully
GEO

[edit on 11/14/2007 by geocom]

reply to post by geocom


Hello Geo,

I respectfully disagree with what you are saying about data. Indeed, data samples used in medicine/pharma are difficult to analyze and they a re subject to many factors.

However, we are often dealing with phenomena outside of the realm of statistics. The Moon is certain to follow its orbit which has been studied in minute detail over the centuries, and more currently with laser range finders. I fail to see what bias there can be, in interpreting that sort of data. The moon is there, for God's sake, and you can look up in the sky and see it move in its orbit. And it doesn't move in the way that JL claims it should. Where's the bias here?

Equally, space shuttle flights have been routinely followed by astronomers, and not a single time they detected a deviation from the orbit advertised by NASA. Hence, it is impossible to conceal docking the shuttle with a Super Secret Space Station aka SSSS.

i wonder what Lear was thinking when he read the title of this thread.

Lear was a C.I.A. pilot and that is common knowlege.The thing that gets me is,Lear out of all the prolific conspiracist out there goes to the extreme to promote to the public that aliens are among us,living in huge underground bases and collaborating with the government to put us all in the vat-prepaired soup. So to me he is not to be trusted for he has already taken the C.I.A. oath. come on a soul collector..how can he possibliy know that it is a soul collector and not a # collector????

reply to post by buddhasystem


Hi again buddha

I am gonna add you to my list of respect for the good conversation

I think we can both agree that we will probably disagree with each others viewpoints on this instead of beating a dead horse and wasting space on here
while I see your points and acknowledge them as points i am no researcher
simply a gatherer of information and as I stated previously.
To me there is no point in disregarding information because it does not appear to the eye or mind to be correct. everyday scientists and researchers cover old ground long thought to be incorrect information and while I have no examples off the top of my head I am sure that there are instances where the information has been proven correct..

As far as the moons orbits go I feel as though this research is still in its infancy as well and will change many more times in my lifetime..

yes you can take Ephemerids and track extra terrestrial objects with accuracy according to what we know, it is what we do not know that I often wonder about. based on what we do not know I think it is difficult to throw away information as valid or invalid..

JL may not make sense to you much of what he says does not make sense to me or sit well with me but again I am not trying to validate or invalidate his information or for that matter any information on this site I try to remain as neutral as I can when reading and sifting through all the info, granted there are times that something I read really gets my dander up or makes me hot under the collar but I walk away and come back later and at times have found by rereading I get a completely different summary..

As long as humans are imperfect data will be imperfect.


Respectfully
GEO

[edit on 11/14/2007 by geocom]

My next thread is going to be titled:

"Is John Lear actually a reptilian shapeshifting venusian who lives on Mars in the Winter and vacations on the moon in the summer and does a very good impression of Dubya at cocktail parties?"

I wonder if my thread will get to 4 pages, I will be so popular!!! Gas prices are about to hit $3.50, the $1 is worth nada and my kids brains are being purposefully turned to mush but Mr. Lear's associations will always be 1st in my book.

Originally posted by geocom
yes you can take Ephemerids and track extra terrestrial objects with accuracy according to what we know, it is what we do not know that I often wonder about. based on what we do not know I think it is difficult to throw away information as valid or invalid..

Greetings Geo,

in exploring this world, the Experiment has always been the final arbiter of truth vs falsehood. If we successfully use mechanics and laws of gravity to launch probes to distant planets, I am compelled to say that these laws and mechanics are valid. A myriad satellites have been launched based on these physics theories. How difficult is it to discard a claim (feel free to call it information) that does not fit with the above observables?

Originally posted by buddhasystem
To GeeGee:

Lets abstract ourselves from the notion of "foolish" for a second and just say there are probable and less probably events.

When I weigh JL being a CIA dis-informer against the follwong propositions:

a) human souls are reprocessed on the Moon and injected back to Earth
b) most US spacecraft are fitted with a fully functional antigrav device
c) space shuttles can also cloak at will
d) mass of the Moon is twice the value traditionally quoted, and yet it's period of rotation is still 28 days against laws of physics

I'd rather go with JL working for CIA as the more likely explanation.

I don't agree with many of his assertions, but even he admits that he is possibly wrong in his theories, and that people might be feeding him disinformation. People here are saying he's disseminating this information KNOWING that it is false, and I don't agree with that. John believes what he says because of what he has been told, experienced, or whatever else he has been privy to, which is all he has to go by. If you are asserting that JL is a disinformation agent that was hired by the CIA, than I disagree.

Originally posted by GeeGee
People here are saying he's disseminating this information KNOWING that it is false, and I don't agree with that. John believes what he says because of what he has been told, experienced

Hello GG,

since I didn't get a straight answer from John, maybe you can help me out with interpretation: there is no way to reconcile his claim about the Moon's gravity with the observed motion of that celestial body. In my view, a claim that goes against an easy to observe phenomenon can not possibly be true. How then does John believe that it is?

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Hello GG,

since I didn't get a straight answer from John, maybe you can help me out with interpretation: there is no way to reconcile his claim about the Moon's gravity with the observed motion of that celestial body. In my view, a claim that goes against an easy to observe phenomenon can not possibly be true. How then does John believe that it is?

Hi buddha

I don't know who John talks to or how he came up with that conclusion. Much of what he believes about the moons gravity and atmosphere come from the words of contactees and past scientists who hypothesized that there was an atmosphere on the moon.

Originally posted by GeeGee
from the words of contactees and past scientists who hypothesized that there was an atmosphere on the moon.

Right, and that hypothesis doesn't hold against the facts (i.e. the observable motion of the moon).

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Right, and that hypothesis doesn't hold against the facts (i.e. the observable motion of the moon).

You'd have to ask John why he believes what he believes, and why all the facts contradict what he's saying. I don't know.

Originally posted by GeeGee

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Hello GG,

since I didn't get a straight answer from John, maybe you can help me out with interpretation: there is no way to reconcile his claim about the Moon's gravity with the observed motion of that celestial body. In my view, a claim that goes against an easy to observe phenomenon can not possibly be true. How then does John believe that it is?

Hi buddha

I don't know who John talks to or how he came up with that conclusion. Much of what he believes about the moons gravity and atmosphere come from the words of contactees and past scientists who hypothesized that there was an atmosphere on the moon.

Hear Hear, Gee Gee!

Good point.

Originally posted by geocom
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..

What I am missing here. Because information is not spoken directly to someone by another, but is instead written, it is somehow not able to be proved fact or fiction?

Edit: Or does it have to do with credibility gathered through one-to-one conversation with the person?

[edit on 11/14/2007 by roadgravel]

Oh man does Mr Lear really believe the driver shot Kennedy?

It is so easy to see that it's a combination of light and shadow, causing it to appear that way.

Sure after the first two or three times I was told what to look for , yea it did appear like the driver shot Kennedy. But after 3 or 4 more views slowed down it's VERY obvious to me that this is not the case. Now could Mr. Lear be spreading disinfo with this whole "Driver shot JFK?" He sure could.

Hmm, this puts into question all of the things that I was on the fence with Mr. Lear. If his eye (well maybe it's not his eyes but the whispering in his ears from certain higher ups) cannot spot that this is a simple coincidence of light and chadow, how am I to believe there is a Sould Catcher on the Moon?

I'll tell you how... I don't.

Mr. Lear is gonna have to provide extaordinary evidence now, for me to accept anything he is trying to claim, no matter how mundane it is.

The driver shot JFK, that was so late 90's. Get with it John.

Originally posted by Nola213

Oh man does Mr Lear really believe the driver shot Kennedy?

It is so easy to see that it's a combination of light and shadow, causing it to appear that way.

Thanks for the post Nola213. You must be looking at a video or document that was made between 1987 and 1989 when the "Dallas Revisited" tape was produced.

It certainly seemed plausible then. But since Michael Collins Piper's book, "Final Judgement" was published (American Free Press, Washington, D.C. Copyright 2004 Michael Collins Piper) it would seem that others were responsible for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

In his 663 page book, which is more thorough than any other book of its kind dealilng with the assassination of President Kennedy, Piper lays the blame with Mossad. He claims Mossad recevied their instructions from David Ben-Gurion just before his resignation as Prime Minister of Israel in the summer of 1963.

Piper claims that Ben Gurion was furious with Kennedy's insistence of inspecting Dimona, Israels nuclear bomb factory.

Mossad was helped by their mole in the CIA James Jesus Angleton, Chief of Foreign Intelligence, who, in 1947 was CIA's Chief of Station in Rome.

Angleton was sent to the new state of Israel in 1948 along with members of MI-6 to help Israel form their secret service.

For whatever reason, Angleton become inexorably allied with Mossad and when assigned as Chief of Foreign Intelligence of the CIA at Langley became 'their man'.

Angleton was fired in 1974 by William Colby then Director of CIA.

CIA, in my opinion, did not participate, as an agency of the U.S. Government in the assasination of Kennedy, but elements within, led by Angleton "greased the skids".

Piper claims that Corsican sharpshooters did the actual shooting.

Get with it John.

Sorry if you got a hold of some old information Nola213.

So what if he is?

There's nothing wrong with being a CIA agent.