Is John Lear Spreading Disinfo?

Originally posted by kleverone

Originally posted by johnlear
Its your choice here and I am not going to try and influence you:

(1) I believe that the moon is artificially constructed
(2) My opinion is that the moon is artificially constructed
(3) My opinion that the moon is artificially constructed is based on these facts:
a. rings like bell
b. surface cannot be easily penetrated with drills

And here is why that is,

On Earth, vibrations from quakes usually die away in only half a minute. The reason has to do with chemical weathering, Neal explains: "Water weakens stone, expanding the structure of different minerals. When energy propagates across such a compressible structure, it acts like a foam sponge—it deadens the vibrations." Even the biggest earthquakes stop shaking in less than 2 minutes. The moon, however, is dry, cool and mostly rigid, like a chunk of stone or iron. So moonquakes set it vibrating like a tuning fork. Even if a moonquake isn't intense, "it just keeps going and going," Neal says. And for a lunar habitat, that persistence could be more significant than a moonquake's magnitude.

c. surface gravity is at least 64% that of earths so it does not conform to stated laws that gravity is proportional to mass and that gravity inversely proportional to the square root of the radius.

You are not taking into account the effects of the gravity from the earth and the tides, the moon is not working with just it own gravity from its own mass, its dealing with that of the earth and the tides(which effect the gravity on the moon)

d. is in rotational lock with the earth

Well I thought you said it was a spaceship and wasn't locked in orbit, but could be towed anywhere?

e. has not been orbiting the earth as long as the earth has been in exitence

Some scientist theorize that the moon is a chunk of the earth that was broken off after a large collision with a large object.

rock that have been found to be considerably older than either the moon or the earth

Have you ever heard of a meteor?

I'm impressed! You are speaking for the majority of all the people that read this thread? You can be darn sure that I am with you on this one!

You can believe that I'm with him as well, although I would venture to guess, my response is slightly less vindictive and a little more gunuine than yours.

edit- chunk is not spelled chuch

Fowl Play
You mean these theories?

[edit on 19-5-2007 by kleverone]

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

Not on any level. I support truth and only truth. Friend or no friend, if you become knowingly deceitful then you have betrayed me and every one around you, and you are no longer a friend until you can regain/gain the trust of the/a neighboring community.

But the case has yet to be proven that he is knowingly being deceitful, and in fact, because there is so much I do agree with him on as regards anomalies on the moon, the rest of the argument seems insignificant by comparison. If he's being deceitful, is the question. Why he's being deceitful is the next question, only until such time as the first question has been answered to MY satisfaction and even then, adding friviolous, non-related information such as his sex life or dietary habits, is disingenious at best. In fact, it is the epitome' of ad hominem.

Some of his theories are " Out There " but does it mean he should be called a disinfo agent?
I think the guy deserves a little more respect.
His photos of the moon were great and threw a new light on my moon base theory.
John Lear seems what it says on the tin, a radical thinking former goverment pilot , friends with Lazar and others, his opinions should not get taken lightly, there is stuff in there worth listening to, he has obviously spent many years studying his subjects... and wether we believe him or not is irrelevant.
Personal attacks because of a maths equation defy belief..
Ever thought the reason why he is so adamant and not willing to change his mind maybe because he knows that it is so.

Originally posted by Fowl Play
I think the guy deserves a little more respect.

Respect is earned, not emptily deserved

Okay, let me give you an example. Lear said that our government already had anti-grav craft and even more advanced stuff that most of us would be totally surprised to find out about. Normally, I would be somewhat skeptical of such a scenario, having been around a few air force bases in the course of 22 years of my husband's active duty service, and never seeing anything that even remotely approached that description . However, my husband DID.

The recounting of his experience follows:

In the eighties, while stationed at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, he was a senior airmen (translated this means, he was making about 700 dollars a month lol. we were so poor we qualified for food stamps and the wic program). The base was having a war games exercise. Even though he was normally a desk jockey (glorified secretary), he was tasked with an extra duty during the war game, to strap on a M-16 and stand guard duty at a guard booth on the flight line (the landing field for aircraft). The rest of the buildings were blacked out, the windows being covered with black plastic.

When the simulated bombing run started, the people inside the buildings were instructed to get under their desks or the closest, available table. This limited the amount of people around to view the bombing run itself. When the sirens went off, everyone told to seek cover did so. But the people tasked to stand guard, had to remain at their posts. My husband was one of these people.

He said, suddenly the largest flying craft he had ever seen in his life (and incidentally, he still hasn't seen anything that big since then and has been in both wars (the Gulf War and the War in Iraq) came flying in over the flightline. It was moving very slowly, almost hovering, was totally silent, had no insignia, no seams, no afterburners, no windows, or signs of engines. It was gun metal grey-black. He couldn't figure out what was keeping it aloft. He'd seen the other stealth craft after that, and it wasn't nearly as big. This thing was huge, so huge, the landing strip could not have accomodated it.

When it came to the end of the landing strip, it began to accelerate and climb almost straight up. It was here that it began to make sound, but it also did something else: It blinked out and appeared farther away, as it accelerated. He said it looked completely capable of space travel.

This was when I realized that we have stuff in the air, that defies known physics, meaning that it really doesn't defy physics, just known physics. Lear's research verifies these "phenomenon," even if it doesn't always sound logical and may sometimes be incorrect, as a general rule, he seems to be spot on. We're all entitled to have personally held opinions that may not agree but the fact his "questionable" research is being indepently verified by people who didn't even know him when they encountered the phenomenon, well, it goes without saying that he's getting more credible, rather than less so.

Perhaps the wilder theories are not as believeable, but to coin a phrase he's "Got it where it counts", in my estimation.

Originally posted by undo
But the case has yet to be proven that he is knowingly being deceitful

This is now a case of your faith. You have become so endeavored in wanting to believe John Lear's claims (God) that you are mutating in to a state of brainwashed ignorance.

If you check the previous pages you can see that not only does John have no evidence, but the evidence he tried to prove was continuously shot down and diss proved.

We can argue the existence of possible invisibilities all day long, but at the end of the day it's just that, invisible.

There was a posting with me and John where John claimed he didn't know what a "factual opinion/opinionated fact" was when in his signature it clearly states that all he says is opinionated, even the "facts". This is a man that is well versed in Human psychology, deception, conscious manipulation, and deflection and/or is stupendously and outstandingly unaware of what he is presenting and saying, thus totally diss connected with his self and his sense of veridicality

If you can't see it then continue reading the 'Bible'. It was about 3-5 pages back now when all of the good stuff occured; check it out if only for your own good.

I've accomplished what I wanted to accomplish here Enjoy

[edit on 19-5-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Originally posted by undo
Perhaps the wilder theories are not as believeable, but to coin a phrase he's "Got it where it counts", in my estimation.

Your estimation is dumbed down and there fore mute in the eyes of a true investigator. You are a follower and a defender of a friend as you stated on the previous page, not a truth seeker.

You admit that you can not verify any mathematical claims, yet you blindly tag along to the fairy's tail, tale.

If you used your head and educated your self your estimation would change as a result of the knowledge gained to estimate with and from.

Until you can bow out to the intellectually superior that are investigating this case you are merely a "want to believe" candidate.

For clarity: I personally not only believe and accept in extra-terrestrial intelligence and life, but I have seen proof as well. I am not here to refute the claims of other wordly life out side of this solar system or in side this solar system, I am here examining the data and story presented by John Lear in the past 20+ pages and you know my conclusion.

May you all have a glee full week end

P.s. undo, you will receive no further responses. Your feeble mindedness is not even minutely deserving of my intellectual time. It was never I that brought forth John's personal life, so keep it to your self

[edit on 19-5-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Originally posted by Fowl Play
Some of his theories are " Out There " but does it mean he should be called a disinfo agent?

Depends on how you define "Disinformation agent" (DA) .

If it is someone, who spreads false claims, although they know the claims are false, then I don't think Mr. Lear is a DA. If, on the other hand, a DA is just someone who spreads false claims, then ... well ... I believe that Mr. Lear is one of the greatest DAs on ATS .

I think the guy deserves a little more respect.

He may have flown a lot of airplanes on difficult missions, but we're not in a cockpit here. We're on a discussion forum, and on such a forum the amount of respect anyone gets from me is directly related to their behaviour, style of discussion and factual knowledge displayed on that forum. And I think that Mr. Lear's style of discussion is not very respectable. I agree that he's never directly unfriendly, but I've seen many examples where he simply avoided to answer a straight question, when he had been "cornered" on a specific detail of his "theories". And just walking away, falling silent or digressing to other subjects whenever one is in danger to "lose" an argument is in my view one of the worst traits you can have in a discussion.

As for his factual knowledge, I think that anyone who, for example, proposes such radical (to put it mildly) new "theories" about the moon, and expects to be taken seriously, should be really well versed in current "standard" knowledge/theories about at least mathematics, astronomy, celestial mechanics, geology, radiology, optics, spectroscopy and spaceflight. Mr. Lear's knowledge in these scientific fields is questionable at best and non-existent at worst.

Coming back to the topic of this thread, one might also regard as a DA someone who spreads lots of wild "way out" claims on subjects about which they know they have only very limited expertise. In this case, Mr. Lear would qualify as a DA as well.

Regards
yf

If they are your rules of defining a DA, i would argue that most of us can fit in to your categories.
We are all disinfo agents to a certain level.
I think the OP meant it as in a Cointel goverment influenced case.
Therefore i think Mr Lear is not a DA, if he is guilty of unknowingly posting falsehoods, he is in good company, as all posters on ATS have at some point also been guilty.
regards

LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

It was never my intent to argue mathematical claims. It was my intent to intercept the nonsense posted in that link. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to argue the validity of unrelated evidence. How is his sex life a contributing factor to the validity of his research? If you know it isn't, then you and I are on the same page. Quit diverting the argument back to a topic I never once commented on (namely the gravity argument).


[edit on 19-5-2007 by undo]

yfxxx,

how do you explain clouds of dust, smoke and mist, on the moon? we have photographic evidence of this and you simply choose to ignore it.

how do you explain craft that defy known physics? how many immense craft without visible engines, have you personally seen blink out and reappear farther away? you do realize the implications of that, do you not?

you honestly expect people who actually know differently, to accept your view of things? we have seen these evidences, first hand.

what do you bring to the table?
a text book, that someone else wrote, based on science, that is probably some fifty years or more behind the actual science.

Originally posted by undo
How is his sex life a contributing factor to the validity of his research?

Not at all, of course. But neither is his past as a pilot, which keeps getting forwarded by his "supporters" .

Regards
yf

Originally posted by yfxxx

Not at all, of course. But neither is his past as a pilot, which keeps getting forwarded by his "supporters"

.

Regards
yf

I think it's certainly more valid, as his career not only lends credence to his understanding of what is and isn't in the air above our planet, but it also lends believability to his claims when they are independently verified by people who have no reason to verify them.

[edit on 19-5-2007 by undo]

Ask yourself if you believe the government would release scientific evidence if it might betray something top secret they were working on? Why do some people feel as if this would naturally be the case? What would be the point of calling it top secret if the science was available for public consumption and agreed upon across the board?

Why the stupidity of the Human mind chooses to sacrifice truth for simplicity will for ever amaze me, yet the reason is awe fully simple and damningly true.

and whoever keeps giving me one star, could you just not give me stars at all? it's pointless to give one star, since i know your motivation.

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Why the stupidity of the Human mind chooses to sacrifice truth for simplicity will for ever amaze me, yet the reason is awe fully simple and damningly true.

If you expect me to continue reading your posts, you better learn to temper them with some modicum of modesty and civilty or you're going to end up being the first person in my time here at ATS to earn the "ignore" button

Originally posted by undo
how do you explain clouds of dust, smoke and mist, on the moon? we have photographic evidence of this and you simply choose to ignore it.

I simply do not see any "anomalous" things on all those moon photos, which you apparently find obvious. I looked at many of the photos which are discussed in the relevant thread, but honestly didn't see anything except a dead, cratered world - i.e., what I'd expect on the moon. A few things, which may look "strange" at first sight, are in my opinion explainable by pareidolia (mostly) or artefacts created by over-magnification of digitally compressed images. But because by the very definition of "pareidolia" I can never prove an "anomaly" to be caused by pareidolia, and because you (and others) are convinced to see something real, there is in my view no point in engaging in a discussion.

how do you explain craft that defy known physics?

I haven't seen any. And neither have I seen convincing evidence of the existence of any.

how many immense craft without visible engines, have you personally seen blink out and reappear farther away? you do realize the implications of that, do you not?

To be frank (and please excuse me for being so): I simply don't believe such tales without very convincing evidence. As long as there are only tales, and no clear(!) photos and/or videos, independent accounts etc., then I simply don't regard them as true. Period. And don't ask me why anyone should "lie". First, you need not be a "liar", and yet what you tell can still be objectively false. Second, I can think of a few reasons why anybody would knowingly fabricate such a story.

you honestly expect people who actually know differently, to accept your view of things?

No, but neither should you expect that I believe you at face value!

what do you bring to the table?
a text book, that someone else wrote, based on science, that is probably some fifty years or more behind the actual science.

You have, by your own admission, no idea what is the "actual science" (you said you something along the lines of "I don't do the math"). Therefore, while you won't like it, I don't take anything you say about current scientific developments (or how the scientific community works) really seriously.

For example:

Ask yourself if you believe the government would release scientific evidence if it might betray something top secret they were working on?

Why do you think that scientific knowledge is controlled by "the government"? Do you know how many top researchers there are all around the world in all sorts of non-governmental organizations? Do you think there is a "World Government", which controls each and everyone? Well, you may actually think so (and I certainly can't prove that there is no such "World Government"), but I won't say what I think about such "Grand Conspiracy Theories" .

Regards
yf

My husband has no reason to lie about what he saw. He doesn't get paid enough money to lie about what he saw. In fact, when he saw it, he was a poor man and remained that way till he earned enough rank the way most people do.

You would believe a scientist, who clearly is only allowed to release to the public what the government considers safe to release, before a soldier's first hand, eyewitness account, who clearly has no reason to lie to you and no reason to withhold what he knows about it, as they never said a word to him about the event either before or afterwards. What would be the point of him lying to you? For money? Hahaha. He'd laugh himself silly if he knew you thought so. We were dirt poor schmucks for the first 19 years of his enlistment. In fact, I contracted Gulf War Syndrome from him when he came home from the Gulf War, which put me in a coma and total life support.

You know what, just believe what you want. You're clearly in denial. I know it's not fair to expect you to believe him but the funny thing is, you don't know enough about him to assume he's lying or telling the truth and since you opt for the former instead of the latter, but will believe a scientist who has no recourse but to leave out certain data in his writings..

Well, whatever floats your boat.

What does TOP SECRET mean to you? You think they study this stuff and post it to the latest scientific journal the next day? You want to try being even remotely realistic? Tell you what, if you think the science our government pays to have researched is so open, YOU get off of your lazy debunker behind and mosey on over the nearest top secret facility and ask to see the latest docmentation on ANYTHING TOP SECRET. Let me know how it goes.

For smart guys, you sure are slow in the logic department