Why The Criticism Of John Lear?

Misfit I believe the Mod. or someone like this person wrote that this was, "The John Lear."

As far as I am concerned Mr. Lear has joined in and shared freely. One problem I see is many people that think they have an open mind really do not.

When it comes to this subject you do need to think out of the box and you have to open to a reality that is one you do not know.

How many times have you heard, life isn't what you thought.

I would think if you are here you are interested, so why not try to help.

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
Could it be because he CHANGES HIS STORY OVER AND OVER all the while ALWAYS CLIMING HE KNOWS THINGS TO BE FACT?

Stating things as fact is more common than it should be for ATS posts in general, but if someone sticks with the same "story" from the beginning, they're either refusing to think, or else incredibly supergenius to have the whole thing figured out from the start.

Whatever... John talks like he knows ALL of these big secrets and tells them as UNQUESTIONABLE FACT. Belittling anyone who DARE question him.

How can he change his positon so drastically then without RETRACTING his previous statements?

I used to support this guy, but something is NOT RIGHT...

Is it HOLOGRAMS or PILOTS JOHN?

Your stories do not ADD UP AT ALL.

Tell you what.
Go to the questions for John Lear forum and ask him.
Then post back here and tell us.

Peace

Dalen

Originally posted by dAlen

Tell you what.
Go to the questions for John Lear forum and ask him.
Then post back here and tell us.

Peace

Dalen

why bother? He has contrdicted himself already... what is the point?

There are 15 pages here of John claiming the 9/11 jets were all holograms...

But previously here: www.greatdreams.com...

He claims they were piloted.

He does not say it is a theory or he thinks... he presents it as FACT that he knows from his experience or knowledge of SECRETS.

I call BS on his 9/11 postings. Believe whatever you like about the rest.

Originally posted by Implosion
I have never seen Mr Lear state that his views were anything other than the opinion of one man. One man. I can't understand why people are queuing up to rabidly debunk every word that he types. Is it so much to ponder for a second that, you know, we might not know as much of a fraction of what we think we know?

All this is, is a big old distasteful pissing contest. Like i used to have with my mates in primary school. You see someone who is renowned, damn, he's a minor celeb, and people all line up to have a crack at knocking him down. It's at times like these, when I wonder how evolved we all really are.

[edit on 4/10/06 by Implosion]

The guy is making claims that he knows this stuff because 'someone in authority' told him. How can it be proved? I've seen the moon photos and all I saw was a crater. There is NO INDISPUTABLE proof of his claims, it's all just supposition and opinion. Soul catchers? Humans living on other planets? Give me a break!

Aliens might well exist (I actually think I've met one a few years ago) but theories like this make genuine truth-seekers look like whackos.

As I said on another thread, it smacks of a dis-info campaign.

I've never read John's posts or theories - because every time I encounter a person who referances John Lear as a source, I find that their understanding of physical reality often comes up short. This was not their fault, it's that they believed what John spoke and used it as the grounds for faulty logic.

So, from these experiences, I really despise the theories that John has. They sound to me like they play on our fantasies to make himself feel more important.

For example, one person believed that there was life on every planet in our solar system, because John Lear said so. This definitely could not be so. Most planets don't have an environment that could possibly support life of any kind. Even robotic life could not exist on Venus because of the high temperatures and crushing pressures (literally it is the hotest place in the solar system - the rocks are partially molten at the surface).

But even if we assume John, in this referance, meant "colonized" instead of evolve, it still makes no sense, since the same problems make it infeasible and, frankly, stupid for aliens to build colonies on most worlds in our solar system. What's the be gained from colonizing Pluto? And if I hear one person say "to harvest Plutonium!", I'm having them shot!

Originally posted by lbennie
instead of 1m/pixel its more like 30m/pixel which isnt that big a deal in the whole scheme of things

30m / pixel is not that special. The SMART-1 probe from ESA returned images with resolutions around 50m /pixel. And at a much beter quality, not only black and white like that of copernicus crater or the lick observatory pictures

The original AMIE concept foresaw a panchromatic, 1024 x 1024 pixel image with a medium field of view of 5.3 degrees by 5.3 degrees. The camera will provide a high spatial resolution, some 50 m/pixel.
ESA SMART-1 probe

Using those pictures to search for anomalies..well...it's just like I said in John Lear's Moon Pictures on ATS thread: Rorschach inkblot test for a bunch of ATSers.
Further more, the lick observatory pictures are full of shadow anomalies...since they are composite pictures
So if you ask me why the criticism of John Lear...well all he does is nothing but fueling some people's need for conspirancies with poor quality pictures and farfetched stories based on them

Yarium,

Has it ever occured to you there may be life within the planets? Also you must remember there are species that "do not" need what we need to survive.

Maybe we need to watch/listen toward North Korea for sightings if they attempt to do a Nuclear Launch.

except when some one makes outrageous claims:

-30,000 miles long spaceships by 2,500 miles wide orbiting Saturn
-every planet in the solar system is inhabited by humans far more advanced than us. (and the ignore us)
- The sun is not fusion
- Everything science has taught us is wrong
- Holographics planes crashed into the trade center towers

These are just a couple.....and when asked to provide proof.....

YOU ARE TOLD TO BUY A BOOKText

Which I thought was against the T&A....

but obviously some get special treatment.

Originally posted by SearchEngine
Alright, I had to start this thread because of all the skeptics of John Lear.

Okay... let me get this straight.

A man tells you that there are cities on the moon, that there are a fleet of ships orbiting Saturn, and various other claims, as though they were fact, and you wonder why some of us are skeptical?

Now, I personally have no beef with him. And, truthfully, I've never posted a criticism or a denouncement of his statements because, frankly, I couldn't be bothered to research the claims, take a solid look at the evidence to support his claims, and to see if there's a rational explanation. It's nothing against him, or his theories, it's just that after you've read hundreds of other people with claims just as creative and varied, you begin to realize there's no point in it until there's a lot of concrete evidence not based on faith.

However, I absolutely believe that people are right to be skeptical. Being "skeptical" doesn't mean you automatically call him a wack-job, it just means that you demand a little bit more than faith in order to decide if an unconventional claim is supported. I myself am a strong believer in proof rather than allegory.

Mr. Lear can look at a moon crater and see a city laid out in concentric circles and radial lines. I see the chromatographic seperation of surface elements by mass, followed by the rolling back of rocks into the depression left by the crater. We can both sit and make up explanations all day about it, and wax poetic about the nature of aliens, but in the end, what really matters is the proof or lack thereof.

Sooo...

Don't hate on skeptics. Think of us as the filters one needs to pass through before the "real world" is going to give the author any credibility.

Originally posted by Yarium
Most planets don't have an environment that could possibly support life of any kind.

Um, how do you know that? To know that other planets cannot support life of any kind is to know every kind of life there may be outside Earth.

Human life may not be supported on other planets ........... that's why we are on Earth.

A life form of another planet may visit Earth, step out of his ship, take a deep breath and kill over from ................... oxygen poisoning.

Think outside the box, if concearning possible life on other planets, the equation of oxygen + water = life must be contained to life on Earth.

Misfit

Misfit....you are correct....

but...

Mr. Lear has stated that humans live on every planet in our solar system not humaniod or human-like......he stated humans (which are far more advanced than us......yet will not help their neighbors.)

[Misfit] Yes, indeed. But I think I saw somewhere JL claiming that there were people like us on Venus. And that the atmospheric pressure of Venus is not around 90bars (Yarium that's not that big, it the same pressure as about 1km below the see level and we know creatures leave there. For us, the problem is that we can breathe air at only 1bar so our chest is literaly crushed at that pressure, but if our chests were full of water or some kind of liquid that can supply us with oxigen it wouldn't be anymore a problem. The big problem is the high temperature wich prevents the formation of organic material necessary for life as on Earth), so from this, one can argue that he was talking about life similar with that of Earth.

edited to add show that the answer is for Misfit and to add a quote from JL

I can't take you to Venus to show what a nice place it is, that the people there look just like us but are much more advanced socially and technologically. No sulphuric atmosphere, no exloding volcanos, no 90 bars of pressure all spoon-fed to you by mainstream science.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

edited to fix the link
[edit on 4/10/06 by Apass]

[edit on 4/10/06 by Apass]

thelibra,

Alright, maybe I worded that incorrectly. Skepticism and questioning the other side of an opinion is healthy in any topic. I'm just tired of seeing that after John posts a response to a question that I have to go through two pages of people arguing about the validity of his claims before the subject of the topic can continue.

AD...cool pictures But those CDROMs are for SMART-1 or for clementine?

Maybe all species are human just in different stages of evolution.

Think out of the box and throw it around. Maybe one evolution is not to interfere with anothers evolution.

Maybe the deepest of Earth waters is where the Creators have there Laboratories and it isn't time as yet for that second coming. (Breathe, lol.)

Maybe this is why they won't let us destroy Earth there Laboratory. Maybe Dec. 21st. 2012 is the second coming, the Earth does it's flip and the New Beginning occurs.

Come on think out of that box.... crazy??????? maybe but then maybe not.

Originally posted by SearchEngine
Skepticism and questioning the other side of an opinion is healthy in any topic. I'm just tired of seeing that after John posts a response to a question that I have to go through two pages of people arguing about the validity of his claims before the subject of the topic can continue.

SE, I'm not sure that I see the difference. I don't mean to be difficult, but it makes sense that one would want to debate the validity of a claim before accepting it as a contributing factor.

For instance, say I declare myself an expert upon all things alien, and someone asks me where the nearest alien life is.

I might respond that it is, in fact, the moon, as is evident from the vast city in this picture, and then show a photo of a crater with what appears to be a bubble in it.

When asked to explain why that bubble is proof of an alien city, I then say the bubble is in fact a holographic projection from the fleet stationed in orbit on the dark side of the moon to protect said city from the rival aliens on Mars, as is evident from the "face and pyramids" on its surface.

It is claim, after claim, after claim of unconventional statements that I would expect any right-thinking person to have at least a healthy degree of doubt about. The proof, each time, is a photograph of something mundane, followed by more assertions of unconventional claims and more photographs of otherwise mundane things. It is neither credible, nor is it science. Instead it is psychology and religion, requiring pretext, suggestion, and faith. Which is fine, but call it what it is, instead of fact.

Originally posted by ferretman2
except when some one makes outrageous claims:

-30,000 miles long spaceships by 2,500 miles wide orbiting Saturn
-every planet in the solar system is inhabited by humans far more advanced than us. (and the ignore us)
- The sun is not fusion
- Everything science has taught us is wrong
- Holographics planes crashed into the trade center towers

These are just a couple.....and when asked to provide proof.....

(emphasis mine)

While i generally agree with you on the overall subject, i wouldn't dismiss something just because a dubious poster said/wrote it. if you do, they gain a certain amount of power over what you think. it's hard i admit, but necessary, otherwise disinfo achieves its goal.

case in point: there are lots and lots of solar anomalies which cannot be explained, dark sunspots, (which indicate a drop in temperature below the clouds), neutrino count discrepancy, short-term oscillations without any useful explanation and last but not least, the corona's surreal temperature readings.

there is more than meets the eye here...


back on topic: imho, the person who posts wild claims should at least attempt tp establish plausibility, if he/she can't do that it's no surprise people will be overly sceptical, as they should be. having an open mind does not mean going to great lengths to proove any outlandish theory thrown at you, does it?

Maybe John Lear has been mind-controlled and programmed by the government to go out and tell these stories because people will believe him to be credible.

This is relevant to this thread so I thought I would post it in it's entirety. You can view the original post here.

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by Implosion

I thought it might be a good time to ask you some simple questions:

Why are you here at ATS, what do you hope to achieve here?

I like putting in my 2 cents worth on the many varied subjects here on ATS. I never thought about ATS in terms of any kind of acheivement.

Do you have any financial interests of any kind within the UFO/conspiracy market?

I was a speaker at the Bay Area UFO Conference and made $1000 plus $400 for gas for my truck. (I don't like to fly on airlines anymore mostly because of the humiliating security procedures and I can't take all my stuff with me.) So I don't mind driving 12 hours to get somewhere. It was the first time in many years I have charged for a lecture. I am a tad short these days and needed the money.

Are you planning on releasing any form of media production [book/film/whatever] for purchase in the near future?

No. All my efforts are directed in getting my extremely small gold mine in production.

How often to you find your opinions changing on all the UFO/conspiracy theories you currently share with us?

Whenever the evidence warrants. For instance, I wrote a paper in 1987 that the Greys were on a bell-shaped curve life cycle and needed our DNA to survive. I don't believe that anymore. I thought that Arab hijackers themselves flew the Boeings into the WTC. I don't believe that anymore. I thought that flight 93 was shot down by an F-16, I don't believe that anymore. I never believed that a Boeing 757 flew into the side of the Pentagon. That scenario is just too ridiculous to believe in the first place.

Do you believe yourself to be 100% correct on any of the theories/ideas that you share with us? If so, which?

No. I do not believe myself to be 100% correct on anything. Sometimes I make the error of not including "this is my opinion" often enough in my posts. For instance, in the post on holograms I should have said, "This is how it may have happened" instead of "This is how it happened." I should have made it clear that the Air Force proposal for 2025 was "very likely" operational now based on the fact that the governments technology is about 50 years ahead of where everybody thinks it is, not "it is operational now". Regarding the hologram theory I still don't know how or what I said that made people think it including Shanksville and the Pentagon. The hologram theory was good for the WTC only. (and still is. an opinion. a theory, a possibility)

Are you trying to turn people around to your own way of thinking? If so, why?

No, I don't care what people think. If I did, I would probably have answered Defcon5's aviation preschool/nursery/ramprat questions differently.

Is it really worth all the hassle?

Getting slammed, tarred and feathered, insulted, pwned and heaped with ridicule on ATS helps build my character and firmly grounds me to reality. (Or what people think is reality.)

Thanks Implosion for the opportunity to answer these questions. I would like to commment on the hologram theory. Many are trying to evaluate the technology of 3 dimensional holograms with current knowledge and conventional wisdom. It can't be done. Anymore than cowboys sitting around the campfire in the 1880's would try to conceive of how a television would work. For those of you who still post "we know" holograms don't make shadows and holograms don't make noise: No you don't. All you know is that with today's technology holograms don't make shadows and don't make noise. You don't have any idea what tomorrow's technology will bring.

[emphasis mine]

Is it now possible to see that we have a man who is looking to share ideas and opinions, and not hard fact? Can we stop arguing about semantics, and focus on intent, or is this rabid mob mentality going to prevail?

thelibra,

Here lies the problem. I have never claimed that anything was "fact". In my first post I said that I don't believe 100% of what John said. I don't remember him saying that anything he said was "fact". Alot of it is his opinion or heard from someone else. The whole UFO and alien topic is based on "opinion" and "heresay". If there was any "fact" out there we wouldn't need to have these types of discussions.