Most Remarkable Claim

Originally posted by Cygnific

Ok, you made me very curious about the tower now.

Can you comment on this maybe, is the tower important to us (Earth)?

I have mentioned before that the moon is an ET outpost, but I didn’t mention that it has a strategic purpose, important to earth, certainly.

The rest, well:
What happens on the moon stays on the moon---lol---for now anyway

Originally posted by bridas
Black ops eh? And do you trust these black ops?

You mean more than the national and international media? Kind of, plus they work for the entities I deal with, which often let us cross-pollinate info---

Originally posted by sleeper
You mean more than the national and international media? Kind of, plus they work for the entities I deal with, which often let us cross-pollinate info---

Point taken sleeper.

It`s interesting you say that the moon is an extraterrestrial outpost. Now I know your thoughts on the material I presented, but for the sake of discussion here is what the 'time traveller' had to say on the moon. I have no proof (Sharon has the books and photos, etc.) of the existence of Emit save for the 'music' that was passed onto me.

Anyway, for what it`s worth.

"Like the moon was once brought here, planet X, the correct name is Celestia, is being "driven" here for the "Harvest"."

And.

"The Draconian regime joined in the rebellion and inhabited much of the inner earth realms and also the entire inner Luna realm.
The controllers in America lusted after landing a man safely on the moon. They knew no such landing was possible with the current technology, even the ones allowed them from the various alien factions. The band of highly radioactive particles would also be a barrier to any foolhardy venturer without adequate protection. The first moon landing was staged for the public. The clandestine and highly secretive controllers made a deal with a race of beings, later to be known as Tall Whites, to "assist" the next moon flights because another faked landing might not be pulled off so nicely as the first. The Tall whites agreed and the next subsequent flights were given outside "alien" assistance. Those Draco- Saurian inhabitants did not like the arrangement but agreed for only a limited number of landings. The controllers made sure that only a primitive technology was allowed to be seen on television. The Tall Whites routinely land their craft in an area outside the Nellis Test Range in Nevada and work clandestinely with high military and civilian officials. This alien race, (Tall Whites) is more advanced than and feared by the so-called "grays" or rather the life forms that control the worker / slave drones called the "grays". The Tall Whites are not the friends of humanity as many believe."

And another little tidbit.

"The entire history of this sector of the universe in this time line is recorded in three sections. The most ancient texts are to be found inside Luna, your moon. The others are under the Sphinx and under the Vatican kept away from the prying eyes of the masses. Together they are called The Halls of Records."

He also said he would observe a final battle between these forces.

"When Celestia comes well into the solar system the orbit will change, proving to all that it is being controlled intelligently. It will come to within an acceptable distance from Earth and the underground inhabitants of the luna will send out the first strike force to repel the armada sent from Celestia. I will be there to see that!"

Originally posted by sleeper

Originally posted by Cygnific

Ok, you made me very curious about the tower now.

Can you comment on this maybe, is the tower important to us (Earth)?

I have mentioned before that the moon is an ET outpost, but I didn’t mention that it has a strategic purpose, important to earth, certainly.

The rest, well:
What happens on the moon stays on the moon---lol---for now anyway

Thanks for the reply Sleeper. Strategic? Hmmm, you make me want to ask more questions

John's latest in obsurd claims is that he thinks that he and Bob Lazar might have found the back Door to Dulce while out on a hike:

Finding Dulce

Click the link and read the post for yourself!

Please join us again next week for another amusing episode of Wild Tales from John Lear!

Tim

[edit on 5/24/2007 by Ghost01]

Originally posted by Ghost01
John's latest in obsurd claims is that he thinks that he and Bob Lazar might have found the back Door to Dulce while out on a hike:

Finding Dulce

Click the link and read the post for yourself!

Please join us again next week for another amusing episode of Wild Tales from John Lear!

Tim

[edit on 5/24/2007 by Ghost01]

I thought you were trying to better yourself? Thought you were a 'changed man'?

Left, right and center you're starting threads mocking people. specifically John. Just quit, dude. "Wild Tales from John Lear"? coming from you that's kind of like the pot calling the kettle black.

Originally posted by Ghost01
John's latest in obsurd claims is that he thinks that he and Bob Lazar might have found the back Door to Dulce while out on a hike:

Finding Dulce

Click the link and read the post for yourself!

Please join us again next week for another amusing episode of Wild Tales from John Lear!

Tim

[edit on 5/24/2007 by Ghost01]

Where's your proof that John's claim is false?
If you're going to call him a story teller at least post evidence to debunk his claim.

Edit

Originally posted by johnlear
As I mentioned before I don't know where the entrance is. However, Bob and I found an entrance to something which was obviously well protected and secret. Its been a long time ago and my memory is hazy but Bob drove me down in one of the valleys at Los Alamos that runs below and along one of the narrow mesas. We came to a heavily guarded entrance. It seems to me it had gun emplacements and huge gates and a large iron door. I think that McDonalds was directly over this place. I never found out what was in there.

Where does he claim to have found the entrance to Dulce ?

[edit on 24/5/07 by executioner]

Ghost, I tend to agree with the other members of the board. Every post I read that involves John I see you there berating, mocking and calling him a liar. Not once have I seen you provide any tangible proof. I find John's posts both interesting and informative. He has the credentials to back up his claims but you sir have neither the credentials or the background to continuously insult a man that is meerly trying to provide the good people of ATS the insight and proof they deserve.

Originally posted by executioner

Originally posted by Ghost01
John's latest in obsurd claims is that he thinks that he and Bob Lazar might have found the back Door to Dulce while out on a hike:

Finding Dulce

Click the link and read the post for yourself!

Please join us again next week for another amusing episode of Wild Tales from John Lear!

Tim

[edit on 5/24/2007 by Ghost01]

Where's your proof that John's claim is false?
If you're going to call him a story teller at least post evidence to debunk his claim.

I was only saying this is John's latest in Remakable and wild claims. I Never said that I was proving anytings about it. I don't know where John was hiking, how could I?

All I'm saying is the story deserves a serious and skeptical review (which it will never get). He sais he was out hiking and found the back door to a secret base. Doesn't anything about that even make you wonder?

Left, right and center you're starting threads mocking people. specifically John. Just quit, dude. "Wild Tales from John Lear"? coming from you that's kind of like the pot calling the kettle black.

What??? "the pot calling the kettle black" what is this supposed to mean?

This is Above Top Secret.com We come here to deny ignorance. I find it ironic and sad that I get ridiculed when I question John's stories and point out the obvious flaws. Why it is that so many people here take everything John Lear ever sais at face value without even thinking about it.

You all are so obsessed with John Lear that you don't even think about what you're reading anymore. It disappointing to see such ignorance from this community.

When I origionally came to ATS, we used to be skeptical of the information that was being posted. People checked things out and dug into what didn't make sense. We spent months on large research projects and them the members would pick over ever inch of our data to see if all of our concusions held up. We even cross check each other's sources looking for things that were missed the first time.

Now, it seems as if with the creation of Conpsiracy Masters people no longer check things for themselves. Any time I dare to Highlight what I see as a fault, I get Ambushed by a wave of Lear Fanatics, who believe John is above being wrong about anything.

I though I would see if you would respond better to humor than you do to the "Direct Approach", obviously not!

If you perfer blind trust to finding the truth, suit yourself!

Tim

Ghost01,

Your snide comments and rudeness END or you won't be posting on ATS any longer. Either find a way to express your opinion in a POLITE, and CIVIL manner and move on to the next subject or simply don't post.

Your comment about "back when you first joined ATS it was more skeptical yadda yadda yadda"... Is pretty amazing considering you have only been a member here for six months.

The membership of ATS doesn't need you (or anyone else) to constantly criticize, berate or try indicate that you know any more about John's theories than anyone else does.

We are all grownups (well most of us) and quite capable of applying critical thought to everything John Lear presents here.

Springer...

Originally posted by GrimUK
I find John's posts both interesting and informative. He has the credentials to back up his claims ...

Credentials to back up his claims? E.g. his wild claims about the moon (its properties and origin)? I didn't know John Lear was an astronaut, physicist or astronomer. So what are his "credentials" to back up his claims in this case.

Just asking !

Regards
yf

Originally posted by Springer
We are all grownups (well most of us) and quite capable of applying critical thought to everything John Lear presents here.

Capable? Possibly. But actually doing so? Well ... don't get me wrong, but a casual lurker on ATS could easily get the impression that there are many "blind followers" of John Lear here, who'd never dare to openly criticize him.

Regards
yf

Originally posted by yfxxx

Originally posted by GrimUK
I find John's posts both interesting and informative. He has the credentials to back up his claims ...

Credentials to back up his claims? E.g. his wild claims about the moon (its properties and origin)? I didn't know John Lear was an astronaut, physicist or astronomer. So what are his "credentials" to back up his claims in this case.

Just asking

!

Regards
yf

yfxxx, John Lear, as you have stated, does not have qualifications (that i'm aware of) in physics or astronomy nor is he or was he an astronaught - Thanks. However, in order to look into the context of my statement we need to have a look at the dictionary. As stated in the dictionary credentials can also mean "anything that provides the basis for confidence, belief, credit, etc.". Now you can surely see that John Lear comes from a highly professional background maybe not in space exloration or physics but due to his highly accomplished career and background you can have respect and belief in what he says. You don't have to believe him, but what I was getting at in my post was that he does deserve respect.

[edit on 24/5/07 by GrimUK]

Originally posted by yfxxx
Capable? Possibly. But actually doing so? Well ... don't get me wrong, but a casual lurker on ATS could easily get the impression that there are many "blind followers" of John Lear here, who'd never dare to openly criticize him.

Regards
yf

Maybe they dont want to criticize him, or maybe they can't be bothered by his stories. I dont believe anybody here, is afraid to question some of his stories.

i just ignore tha parts that i don't agree with. it is just that simple. the anomolies are highly intriguing by themselves. I don't need John Lear to think for me...i can see the images and read his data and draw my own conclusions.

On the same note, i don't need anyone who disagree's with John to think for me either. I am logical, reasonable, and can draw my own conclusions.

I will say that I am very happy to have John here, and i am very happy to have some level of access to him via this forum. I do not know what my opinion is on him, as i do not know him. He seems genuine and nice, and that shows in tn the fact that few people think he is "spreading disinfo" purposefully, if at all.

Originally posted by Ghost01

Left, right and center you're starting threads mocking people. specifically John. Just quit, dude. "Wild Tales from John Lear"? coming from you that's kind of like the pot calling the kettle black.

What??? "the pot calling the kettle black" what is this supposed to mean?

dictionary

i can elaborate on why i find this applies to you, but frankly im not as obsessed with you as you are with John.

I don't blindly follow whatever John does and says, nor do i blindly follow what you say. What does bother me is that you constantly exclaim to have found 'the truth' which coincedently always seems to contradict what John says. Everytime you screw up with one of your 'revealing' posts and get some negative replies, you play the innocent card and tell people theyre blindly following what John says. Perhaps they don't? Perhaps they simply read what he posts, and make up their mind on what they concider truth or not. However, while you maintain that everyone who doesnt try to overthrow his beliefs and comments is simply "obsessed" with him, it is you who continually posts snide remarks as if you've lost faith in your hero. If anyone is obsessed, i'd suspect that person is you, rather than most other people here.

I had this, and other discussions with you before and you've expressed your intent to change more than once. Every time though, it seems you forget your new resolutions within a week.

Anyway, Springer seems to have hung the sword of Damocles over your head, i guess its up to you whether or not you want the horsehair to break.

Cheers,
and cheer up.

Jay

Originally posted by yfxxx
Capable? Possibly. But actually doing so? Well ... don't get me wrong, but a casual lurker on ATS could easily get the impression that there are many "blind followers" of John Lear here, who'd never dare to openly criticize him.

Regards
yf

So what? How is that any of your or my concern?! If there are people in this world who want to take John's picture, create a shrine in their living rooms and PRAY to it everyday at 5:01pm HOW is that ANY of our business?!

Springer...

At the risk of a "big quote", I am going to do so (risk a Big Quote), to illustrate the PERFECT, RATIONAL and MATURE response to this load of bull hockey...

KUDOS to "shadow fax"...

Originally posted by shadow fax

Originally posted by Ghost01

Left, right and center you're starting threads mocking people. specifically John. Just quit, dude. "Wild Tales from John Lear"? coming from you that's kind of like the pot calling the kettle black.

What??? "the pot calling the kettle black" what is this supposed to mean?

dictionary

i can elaborate on why i find this applies to you, but frankly im not as obsessed with you as you are with John.

I don't blindly follow whatever John does and says, nor do i blindly follow what you say. What does bother me is that you constantly exclaim to have found 'the truth' which coincedently always seems to contradict what John says. Everytime you screw up with one of your 'revealing' posts and get some negative replies, you play the innocent card and tell people theyre blindly following what John says. Perhaps they don't? Perhaps they simply read what he posts, and make up their mind on what they concider truth or not. However, while you maintain that everyone who doesnt try to overthrow his beliefs and comments is simply "obsessed" with him, it is you who continually posts snide remarks as if you've lost faith in your hero. If anyone is obsessed, i'd suspect that person is you, rather than most other people here.

I had this, and other discussions with you before and you've expressed your intent to change more than once. Every time though, it seems you forget your new resolutions within a week.

Anyway, Springer seems to have hung the sword of Damocles over your head, i guess its up to you whether or not you want the horsehair to break.

Cheers,
and cheer up.

Jay

Originally posted by GrimUK
Now you can surely see that John Lear comes from a highly professional background maybe not in space exloration or physics but due to his highly accomplished career and background you can have respect and belief in what he says.

Yes ... if he's talking about flying airplanes. But I don't see what one thing (his long and successful career as a pilot) has to do with something else (the credibility of and respect for his very "unconventional" claims).

You don't have to believe him, but what I was getting at in my post was that he does deserve respect.

Regarding the respect he deserves on ATS, I have said it in another thread before, and I can repeat it 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.

To put it in a nutshell: I don't buy the concept, that if someone is a professional, or even a celebrity, in area A, this automatically means that anything they say about topics B, C, etc. is more respectable or relevant than what a "nobody" says about B, C, etc.

Regards
yf

Originally posted by Springer
Ghost01,

Your snide comments and rudeness END or you won't be posting on ATS any longer. Either find a way to express your opinion in a POLITE, and CIVIL manner and move on to the next subject or simply don't post.

Yes Sir! I'm finished with the running comentary!

Your comment about "back when you first joined ATS it was more skeptical yadda yadda yadda"... Is pretty amazing considering you have only been a member here for six months.

I was referring to my origional account as ghost, which I used back when I helped with the B-2 and Area 51 research projects. At one point I got locked out of that accound and couldn't get it to reset the password, so I started over with a new account. If you count the time between the two accounts, it's more then 6 months.


Tim