Bob Lazar fact or fiction???

Originally posted by johnlear
No. I just wanted to see if you knew.

I told you I don't know Lazar's explanation.
I'll ask again nicely. Please tell the forum how Bob Lazar came to have an above top secret clearance adjudicated in less than a month's time? Considering I posted in my experience, it takes at least a year and you added your own clearance took 2 years.

Originally posted by johnlear

This tells lot about you investigative credentials. It tells us that you are making judgements without making thorough background checks. Before wasting our time here on ATS you need to do a little research so that you don't have to say "I don't know much about so and so but here is my opinion." In those cases your opinion is worth nothing.

I know he's goddamn lying.

Knapp investigates a magical phantom wolf through which bullets pass harmlessly and then pulls a disappearing act. That is enough to tell me the validity of his journalism. I don't put supernatural ghosts in the same category as UFOs.

Again you cast aspersions without addressing my reasoning for calling Lazar a liar.
I didn't say he was lying out of the blue ! You're taking my comments out of context.
I told you I handled DIS investigational paperwork. I was intimately familiar
with the procedures for handling crypto, sas, sci, siop-esi and other areas of classified material. Someone saying they had a clearance 38 levels above top secret is nonsense. There are top secret clearances and then compartments and special access programs further restricting access. The govt doesn't use a linear progression of classifications levels above ts. There is no 36 levels above ts, and then 37 levels above ts etc....

Originally posted by johnlear
Until either you or I actually go to the moon I would respectfully request that you give me the benefit of the doubt, or at least suspend your insults until that event occurs. Thanks

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I will not and should not give you the benefit of the doubt.
What is your evidence ?
Nobody doubts your aviation expertise, but some of your UFO/alien theories
are extremely difficult for any rational person to give credence.
Can you produce a single statement from any of the Apollo astronauts to the effect of, yes the moon has a breathable atmosphere, yes we saw trees and vegetation ?

Originally posted by johnlear
Schaden, again I must ask you to check your facts. There is no 'dark' side of the moon. The moon is in rotational lock with the earth and all parts of the moon receive the same amount of light as all other parts. The 'soul collector' is in the Sinus Medii near or at Mosting A, almost dead center in the half of the moon that faces earth. Whether or not it is a 'soul collector' is purely conjecture. That it towers about 6 miles above the lunar surface is photographic and scientific fact.

I'm aware of the rotational characteristics of the moon. I've taken university level astronomy. Dark side of the moon is just a phrase. I admit I'm in error if your so called soul collector is not on the far side. You say it's photographic and scientific fact this 6 mile high tower exists. May I ask to see evidence ?

Originally posted by johnlear
There are 2 S-4's within the NTS proper. One is an electronic bombing range one is the research facility that Bob worked at. The one range could be identified from certain charts of the test site but the S-4 that Bob worked at could not. It is not on any map or chart.

You claim there is an S-4 research facility. Where is the evidence ?

I cannot accept your research into element 115.
You're not qualified to make any such assessments of its properties.
And element 115 has been synthesized in the Dubna laboratory.
The half life was less than a millisecond.

Originally posted by johnlear
If this is the biggest reason you think Lazar is a fraud then you have staked your lack of investigative research ability on George Knapps honesty.

Pure rhetoric.
I'm not basing my viewpoint off of Knapp's honesty.
The fact is Lazar cannot prove and nobody can verify he holds these advanced degrees. I merely pointed out to LAES, Knapp's own testimony is damning of Lazar.

And let's not forget LAES is the one that started with the "childish" name calling.
I posted my opinion - I don't believe Lazar is telling the truth.
I gave reasons why and he calls me ignorant.
An all too often label amongst ufologists that don't buy every wild conspiracy theory hook, line and sinker.
He also called me a "noob", which most people take to be an insult. It didn't get ugly until then. I've been registered here for a few years. His account is 3 months old.
Sort of ironic.

Also I don't appriciate Springer's one sided moderating.
It says right in this thread: "General ATS discussion etiquette" Calling someone a noob is against the rules, yet LAES comments are not equally reprimanded.
I insulted Bob Lazar, I admit it.
I believe the rules are against namecalling other forum members. Not a 3rd party with a dubious past like Lazar.
Or else you had better edit all of the threads calling President Bush a nazi fascist etc... (Show me where it says 3rd parties are protected from pejorative language?)

Originally posted by jritzmann

Since it seems we're through with "I know more then you do" from the peanut gallery, I'll ask these questions again.

Mr. Lear-
Do you believe there is any chance that Bob was used essentially as a controlled disinformation leak? By that I mean is it possible that the disc and whatever Bob might have been exposed to was nothing more then smoke and mirrors to divert possible attention away from any other black project?

I had a great many friends who worked at Groom and NTS. I have always been afraid that Bob Lazar was in fact a 'controlled' leak by those who wanted the information out and were using me and Bob to do it. If that were the case then I am afraid that we botched it.

As far as a controlled disinformation leak, no, in my mind, because of all the stuff that happened including a lot of 'weird' stuff that is not generally known about the Lazar case, it was not a controlled disinformation leak.

If Bob was drugged in some way, as he more or less indicated, on one of the Janet flights, could it be he was drugged and led through a senario to make him believe he was seeing something he wasnt?

That is certainly possible. Bob described the drugging episode as follows:

On his first trip to S-4 he took a bus from Groom to S-4. Took about 1/2 hour. At S-4 they took him to an infirmary and made scratches on his arm, 4 or 5 horizontal then 10 vertical. Into each of these 'squares' they dropped a different substance with a small dropper. They told him it was an allergic reaction test. He was then told to sit in a chair and drink what he described as a 'pine smelling' fluid. Almost immediately after he began to feel dizzy and he had the impression that he was far down in a well with his arms 20 or 30 feet long and his hands grasping the top edge of the well with his fingertips. At the same time of this impression an individual began reading the provisions of the security level with which he was being briefed. As a particular point was made by the 'reader', a soldier standing near by would bang the point of his rifle into Bobs chest with great force. Something else happened which I will not discuss now. When Bob decided not to go back to work at S-4 we took him to Lane Keck and did 3 regressive hypnosis. The first session the tape recorder didn't work and all we have are the notes that Gene Huff took. The second session I have the original tape and transcription I made from the tape. I can't remember what happened at the third session. Without going into a lot of detail what we tried to do was find out what Bob read in the briefings about the 'future'. But whatever they did to Bob, he was unwilling and/or unable to tell us what he read. When Lane would try to skillfully circumvent the blocks, Bob would say, "thats a trick question," and refuse to answer.

Regarding the incident of not being able to remember what he did between the time he boarded the airplane to go to work at S-4 and when he deplaned after landing back at McCarran this is a form of mind control common in classified programs and has been used for at least the past 10 or 15 years, I don't know what triggers it but it can work in office buildings, hangars, anywhere.

I would also ask if you actually witnessed structured craft on any of Bob's "outings" on those nights at Groom Lake, or if they were only lights moving erratically?

On March 22, 1989 at about 9pm after the light stopped flitting around and began a descent back into Groom Lake which was behind the mountains I was able to aim and focus my Celestron 8 on the object. What I saw for a period of about 10 to 15 seconds was a disk shaped object oriented about 45 degrees to the horizon radiating a yellow or gold substance. In my humble opinion is was a real, genuine, no b.s., honest to god, flying saucer.

Originally posted by Schaden


Welcome back Schaden! Nice to see you back so soon.

*sigh*

There are top secret clearances and then compartments and special access programs further restricting access. The govt doesn't use a linear progression of classifications levels above ts. There is no 36 levels above ts, and then 37 levels above ts etc....

Schaden, heres the deal: Whatever you did you never got high enough clearance to know that there was a higher clearance. Get it?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Thank you Mr. Sagan.

Can you produce a single statement from any of the Apollo astronauts to the effect of, yes the moon has a breathable atmosphere, yes we saw trees and vegetation ?

When Alan Bean was asked by a reporter in 1996, "When you look up in the sky, standing there on the moon, what do you see?"

Bean replied, "A pair of black patent leather shoes."


Get it?

I'm aware of the rotational characteristics of the moon. I've taken university level astronomy. Dark side of the moon is just a phrase. I admit I'm in error if your so called soul collector is not on the far side. You say it's photographic and scientific fact this 6 mile high tower exists. May I ask to see evidence ?

LO3-84M. There must be a thousand sites on the web.

Originally posted by johnlear
Schaden, heres the deal: Whatever you did you never got high enough clearance to know that there was a higher clearance. Get it?

No I reject that piece of circular logic.
It's always the crackpots that claim they had X levels above top secret clearance.
James Bamford wrote 2 authoritative books on the NSA and mentions nothing of it.
His writing about the way high levels of classified material works mirrors my own experience. Is there anyone anywhere who can speak of these multiple levels above top secret that aren't UFO/alien conspiracists ?

Get it?

I get that you can't back up your wild theories.

LO3-84M. There must be a thousand sites on the web.

Actually I found only 2 pages that were in English.
www.google.com...
This tower appears to be a Richard Hoagland myth.
It's scientific fact huh ?
I don't believe him either.

Mr. Lear-
Thank you for answering, I appriciate it.

While I am, and have always been rather fascinated by Bob Lazar's story, I always had the impression that it *might* have been some sort of controlled leak for reasons either pertaining to unknown craft or a smokescreen for the divergence of other intelligence on some other project.

It also may account for any percieved "ease" in obtaining a clearance, as Bob was more or less picked up on when he contacted Teller about a position.

One thing that always stuck out in my mind, if the craft and it's origins were absolute fact as described by Lazar, is the idea of going public to secure his safety.

In my opinion, if said "people" wanted Bob dead, he's be dead, and the story never would have broken. Even after publicly admitting his experience, it would have been easy to "off" Bob, make it look like a suicide, and have the story concocted that he was psychotic to begin with. When none of his records checked out, the answer would have been sealed. Bob was a nutjob, who was consumed by his own delusion, and in effort to have some control over his percieved fate that he'd be killed by agents of S-4, he killed himself.

I dont think much of the public would have batted an eye. Another nut.

So for that and other reasons, I think Bob was supposed to do exactly what he did. I dont think we'll ever know the whole story, as you said once a long time ago in an interview "these people are good" in reference to those "in the know" and involved with such craft and it's possible reverse engineering. I believe you when you say you observed a craft there that you believe to be a "flying saucer", but at the same time my head tells me S-4 knew you were there, and watching. So could a "show" have been enacted? Sure. As I said we'll likely never know.

None of this in my opinion detracts from what I have always said, that there is something to learn from this case. It's no doubt an interesting one, and I for one dont think Lazar concocted the whole thing from scratch. Something happened, we just dont know exactly what.

Thanx for coming into ATS to talk about it.

~Jeff

Originally posted by Schaden

Originally posted by johnlear
Schaden, heres the deal: Whatever you did you never got high enough clearance to know that there was a higher clearance. Get it?

No I reject that piece of circular logic.
It's always the crackpots that claim they had X levels above top secret clearance.
James Bamford wrote 2 authoritative books on the NSA and mentions nothing of it.
His writing about the way high levels of classified material works mirrors my own experience. Is there anyone anywhere who can speak of these multiple levels above top secret that aren't UFO/alien conspiracists ?

So you actually believe that the govt clearances arent compartmentalized information? I would argue that it's absoutely that and more. Any book ever written for public view outside such areas isnt going to fully document the compartmentalization of the security clearances of the US govt due to current and past US laws on National Security.

I'm sure there are many clearances compartmentalized into all sorts of different need to know areas. The idea that many with Top Secret clearances not knowing anything above that is rather the point.

[edit on 19-8-2006 by jritzmann]

Schaden

I called you a newbie. It is very different from "noob". The word noob, is military slang for the term knob heads. When the new recruits entered boot camp, their heads were shaved and the older recruits would call them knob heads, because they looked like door knobs. Thats how you tell the new recruits from the older ones, was that they had perfectly shaved knob heads. Then the term shortened to knob, and then formed into noob, because it is similar to saying newbie. Newbie is also a military term that came from the words "new boy".

Since you are just starting out with the Bob Lazar saga you are a newbie, and you do not know all the facts about him, but since you pretend you do I called you ignorant.

ig·no·rant
adj.

1. Lacking education or knowledge.
2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
3. Unaware or uninformed.


new·bie
n. Slang

One that is new to something, especially a novice at using computer technology or the Internet.


I wasn't insulting you, just using words that best describe your situation. Also, I would like to say, since you have questioned almost everybodys credibility on this topic.... Bob Lazars , John Lears, George Knapps, and mine. Lets question YOUR credentials... You says you have a TS clearance, and you talk like you are in the military, but you have no proof. Whats the deal? Let me guess, showing any kind of proof would jeapordize your TS clearance right? It will jeapordize your safetly, and your anonymity? Can you show us proof of your clearance? Or proof of your position in the government?

-back on subject-

Many people that have proven they worked in Groom Lake confirmed Bob Lazar worked there, on classified projects. Many others also confirmed most of Bob Lazars story.

If you need more proof than that I suggest you do the research yourself, because asking people on these forums will not satisfy your needs. I suggest you arrange an interview with Bob Lazar himself, if possible, so that you can finaly leave this topic like you have already said you would.



[edit on 19-8-2006 by LAES YVAN]

Originally posted by Schaden

No I reject that piece of circular logic.
It's always the crackpots that claim they had X levels above top secret clearance.
James Bamford wrote 2 authoritative books on the NSA and mentions nothing of it.

I am not familiar with what level of clearance James Bamford had. But if he had the level of clearance I am talking about he would not have had permission to talk about it under any circumstances.

This tower appears to be a Richard Hoagland myth.
It's scientific fact huh ? I don't believe him either.

OK. Well, then order it yourself from NASA. Its not like its a big secret. Just order a print of LO3-84M and look at it yourself. Then you can tell us that you think its a smudge or developing error or whatever. But then you are going to have to explain how the same smudge and same developing error got on 2 or 3 other photos of the exact same object.



Schaden listen up. I enjoy debating here on ATS but its difficult to debate with someone who says things like, "This tower appears to be a Richard Hoagland myth' without any evidence to substantiate your suspicions. And you say, "I don't believe him either." Did you catch him in a lie? Is this your 'gut' feeling. Really Schaden, you need to come to this thread with more than your 'gut' feeling. We get enough of that from the President. You told us that you had enough of this thread and we bade you farewell. 2 hours later you are back whinning about this and whinning about that. Let me respectfully suggest that you take 2 aspirin with a full glass of water. Then type in boblazar.com and read every single page. Then go to enterprisemission.com and read every single page. Then when you come back here to debate we won't have to spoon feed you the information you should have known in the first place to try and debate the issue. Good luck and happy reading!

John Lear, I have a question for you.

Is it possible for an average joe to get a one-on-one interview with Bob Lazar? Or does he not trust the public? I am aware he has 2 body guards with him at all times, so I'm guessing he is cautious about such meetings.

Originally posted by jritzmann

So you actually believe that the govt clearances arent compartmentalized information? I would argue that it's absoutely that and more. Any book ever written for public view outside such areas isnt going to fully document the compartmentalization of the security clearances of the US govt due to current and past US laws on National Security.

I'm sure there are many clearances compartmentalized into all sorts of different need to know areas. The idea that many with Top Secret clearances not knowing anything above that is rather the point.

[edit on 19-8-2006 by jritzmann]

Of course they are. Just the names of the compartments I was briefed into is in fact SCI. My point is once you're talking about information restricted above a simple TS clearance, all bets are off. There is no hierarchy of information such as level 30 above TS, level 31 above TS etc... That is pure bunk. I don't expect detailed information of SCI compartments to be available in the public domain, but when someone makes the specific claim, using the specific phrase, "X levels above TS", it sets off the BS detector. It's inevitably comes from some UFO conspiracist that can't even prove they were in a position to hold a clearance. You'd think if there was such a system, there would be anecodotal evidence somewhere. A footnote perhaps ?
But there is nothing.

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
I called you a newbie. It is very different from "noob". Lets question YOUR credentials... You says you have a TS clearance, and you talk like you are in the military, but you have no proof. Whats the deal? Let me guess, showing any kind of proof would jeapordize your TS clearance right? It will jeapordize your safetly, and your anonymity? Can you show us proof of your clearance? Or proof of your position in the government?

Newbie and noob are synonymous.
Let's not get into symantics.
I told you I didn't believe Lazar.
You were incredulous and hostile to the idea anyone would not believe his stories.
That's when the name calling started.

Look what your wrote:
"Anyway... I could really care less your opinion on him. But it does piss me off how certain you are that his guy is a fraud, just because of your ignorance.
You are the type of ingnorant person that needs proof of the proof of the proof. It's a never ending story with you people... "

This is ad hominem language. You are an ignorant person. You people....
It "pisses you off" I don't believe the same thing as you. The title of this thread is Bob Lazar fact or fiction. If you can't respect dissenting views without resorting to anger maybe you should take the time out.

I was active duty in the Navy for 8 years during the Bush41 and Clinton administrations. I started off as a nuclear submariner. My rate was radioman. Due to a serious motorcycle accident, I was disqualified from sub duty and cross rated to CTO. Which is basically a intel comms specialist on shore stations. I'm a qualified submariner on a Los Angeles Class 688 submarine. Specifically SSN-701 La Jolla. Look at my post history. Ask me any question related to the Navy or Submarines, and if it's unclassified I'll give you an answer. I no longer hold a clearance.
I don't expect quid pro quo. But you can try and convince me if you want.

Originally posted by LAES YVAN

John Lear, I have a question for you.

Is it possible for an average joe to get a one-on-one interview with Bob Lazar? Or does he not trust the public? I am aware he has 2 body guards with him at all times, so I'm guessing he is cautious about such meetings.

Ask him @ unitednuclear.com. He hasn't answered me in 7 months but he might answer you. I am pretty sure he reads all the emails or if he doesn't Joy does. In the past 6 months or so he's done interviews with George, Discovery Channel and Wired.

sigh...

You statement about by "one sided moderation" is typical of the shills of the internet. I never mentioned anyone's name, I never excluded anyone's comments, insults or otherwise... My message was for EVERYONE who EVER posts on our site.

Not to mention I am NOT a Moderator and have never declared myself a Moderator, I don't have the patience to be a Moderator.

Springer...

Originally posted by johnlear


Schaden listen up. I enjoy debating here on ATS but its difficult to debate with someone who says things like, "This tower appears to be a Richard Hoagland myth' without any evidence to substantiate your suspicions. And you say, "I don't believe him either." Did you catch him in a lie? Is this your 'gut' feeling.

You told me the name of this alleged artifact on the moon as if it was common knowledge. A thousand websites. I found two that were in English after googling
the term you gave me. The second website said this anomaly was detected by Hoagland. No I've never caught him in a lie. He's the guy that furthers the theory that the face on Mars was created by aliens right ? - A pseudoscientist who interestingly enough has exaggerated his credentials and past work history much like Bob Lazar.

The irony is killing me. You question my lack of evidence when you can't produce any to backup your various wild theories. I know you are an accomplished pilot and flew missions for the CIA. But I categorically reject the majority of your UFO theories. I have an open mind. I can be convinced but without evidence, I'm left with nothing to believe.

please explain something for me. if bob lazar was working at a nonexistant facility on nonexistant spacecraft and according to the goverment he was never there how could they drag him into court?

Originally posted by Schaden

You told me the name of this alleged artifact on the moon as if it was common knowledge. A thousand websites. I found two that were in English after googling the term you gave me.

Try "John Lear's Big Soul Catcher On The Moon."

Did you order a copy?

The second website said this anomaly was detected by Hoagland. No I've never caught him in a lie. He's the guy that furthers the theory that the face on Mars was created by aliens right ?

Yes. That would be an accurate assessment. You might call them aliens but they look identical to us. What is your opinion of Tithonia?

- A pseudoscientist who interestingly enough has exaggerated his credentials and past work history much like Bob Lazar.

Interesting. Can you give me your source for RCH exaggerting his credentials? Thanks.

I have an open mind.

This may be the problem. Let me respectfully suggest that you look and see if your brains fell out. Just a thought.

Oh, you're Navy? What do you think about Linda Howe's interview with Chief Sheppard?

I deleted your last post because you still aren't "getting it"... This is a FRIENDLY discussion on a Saturday afternoon between people with a common interest. YOU came boiling in here in a huff decrying this and denouncing that and acting quite the authoritarian on a subject that is drowning in B.S., conjecture and mystery.

The Members who were enjoying the discussion, and tossing ideas out and asking questions of a man whose history is INTERESTING (notice I didn't say gospel or fact) reacted to your hard line position of "This is all bunk and Bob Lazar is a FRAUD" statements with their opinion.

You then went on to make your avatar something we would NEVER ALLOW on ATS since Bob Lazar is a human being trying to make his way like the rest of us and doesn't need his face plastered all over a site that attracts millions of people a month with the word FRAUD typed across it. That pretty much indicates your position and absolute CLOSING of your mind to anything anyone might have to say in this conversation that wasn't in line with your belief that Lazar is a fraud. You then stated you were done with this thread and the folks involved sighed in relief in the hope they could get back to their maniacal musings unfettered by your "logic" but alas it was not meant to be.

I suggest you either enjoy the discussion or IGNORE the discussion, there is nothing being said here anyone is expected to bet their retirement on or even their lunch money on. No harm will come from people discussing the Lazar ordeal or anything else in the offing in this thread. No one in this thread is trying to convince anyone of anything and I am pretty sure there won't be any national policy changes because of it.

If this is all B.S. as you claim then it is purely worthless and it will end as such. That doesn't mean the social graces need to be thrown out the window mate.

Springer...

[edit on 8-19-2006 by Springer]

Originally posted by johnlear
Try "John Lear's Big Soul Catcher On The Moon."

Did you order a copy?

Yes. That would be an accurate assessment. You might call them aliens but they look identical to us. What is your opinion of Tithonia?


Interesting. Can you give me your source for RCH exaggerting his credentials? Thanks.

This may be the problem. Let me respectfully suggest that you look and see if your brains fell out. Just a thought.

Yeah I have. The check is in the mail.

IIRC you're referring to an alleged lost civiliation on Mars ?
Call me very skeptical.

As for Hoagland. Check into his claims of getting the International Angstrom Medal for Excellence in Science. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences or Uppsala University denies he ever received it. Also he claims he produced the documentary
and Night of Encounter, although he isn't listed in the credits. Also he has claimed he was close friends with Walter Cronkite, who specifically has distances himself. Calling Hoagland a kook. He claims Carl Sagan falsely took credit for the plaque on Pioneer 10. Ad naseum.....

Nice quip about my brain.

Originally posted by Springer


You then went on to make your avatar something we would NEVER ALLOW on ATS since Bob Lazar is a human being trying to make his way like the rest of us and doesn't need his face plastered all over a site that attracts millions of people a month with the word FRAUD typed across it.

The topic of the thread is Lazar fact or fiction.
Why is calling Bob Lazar a fraud sacreligious ?
It was a mistake to even delve into one of these scurrilous threads.
I usually avoid them. It's obvious there is a cult of personality surrounding him.
I won't make that mistake again.

Originally posted by Schaden

As for Hoagland. Check into his claims of getting the International Angstrom Medal for Excellence in Science. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences or Uppsala University denies he ever received it. Also he claims he produced the documentary
and Night of Encounter, although he isn't listed in the credits. Also he has claimed he was close friends with Walter Cronkite, who specifically has distances himself. Calling Hoagland a kook. He claims Carl Sagan falsely took credit for the plaque on Pioneer 10. Ad naseum.....

Nice quip about my brain.

I believe John politely asked for your source, not just a select few typed words. Same with your claims of being in the Navy for 8 years.. I don't see proof, I just see a select amount of words that anyone with a father in the Navy could type.

Here on ATS, people like to see external links to your source. Most of the time multiple sources help even more.

Also, in your 8 years in the Navy, have you ever seen the double knife logo that is in the middle of my avatar, under the Trident? If so, please tell me where it is from.

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
I believe John politely asked for your source, not just a select few typed words. Same with your claims of being in the Navy for 8 years.. I don't see proof, I just see a select amount of words that anyone with a father in the Navy could type.

Here on ATS, people like to see external links to your source. Most of the time multiple sources help even more.

Also, in your 8 years in the Navy, have you ever seen the double knife logo that is in the middle of my avatar, under the Trident? If so, please tell me where it is from.

So are you his spokesman ?
I gave him some specific things to investigate.
There are a thousand webpages.
See how this game is played ?

I gave as much proof as possible in a public forum.
What do you want a photocopy of my DD-214 ?
Keep dreaming. I see you're not going to test my knowledge in my specialization.
I've made posts over a year ago discussing my Navy experience.
Is it just a conspiracy ?
And no I've never seen the double knife logo. I have no idea what it is.

Let's see your proof you're who you say you are.
What's your source rating ? What NECs do you hold ?
What is your current command and UIC ?
If I had a nickel for everyone I've met that claims to have been SF I'd be rich.

admin edit... again... I grow weary of the inability to learn social grace and I don't think it's too much to ask that you learn it BEFORE you find ATS, or at a minimum learn it before you post.


[edit on 8-19-2006 by Springer]