Is John Lear Spreading Disinfo?

ATS is the home of conspiracy theory and alternative topics discussion isn't it? If I wanted to read about "mainstream" science I'd head on over to Wikipedia. I've been exposed to "mainstream" science for the majority of my 20+ years and quite frankly I'm tired of the consistently unoriginal "I'M A SCIENTIST, I'M RIGHT, EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG" mentality.

Basically it boils down to intolerance; one becomes comfortable with their belief system and sets out to tear apart anything questioning it. THIS is the problem - INTOLERANCE. Yfxxx is an example of this; he's so unwilling to accept the mere possibility of truth in John's beliefs that he has to turn to "I HAVE A DEGREE, I'M RIGHT, YOU’RE WRONG". It's childish, unprovoked, and quite frankly unacceptable on a website explicitly devoted to the discussion (not argument) of ALTERNATIVE topics.

Originally posted by thebox
Basically it boils down to intolerance; one becomes comfortable with their belief system and sets out to tear apart anything questioning it. THIS is the problem - INTOLERANCE. Yfxxx is an example of this; he's so unwilling to accept the mere possibility of truth in John's beliefs that he has to turn to "I HAVE A DEGREE, I'M RIGHT, YOU’RE WRONG". It's childish, unprovoked, and quite frankly unacceptable on a website explicitly devoted to the discussion (not argument) of ALTERNATIVE topics.

You obviously didn't understand at all what I said on this thread. It's not me who stomps his feet, and says "I'm right, I'm right, I'm right!!". I made arguments, based on science and logic, against a specific claim of Mr. Lear ("high" gravity on the moon). If you think my arguments are invalid, you can always point out what you think are flaws in it. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, so far nobody has clearly said where the errors in my specific argumentation are. All objections appear to go along the line of "science isn't perfect, and has been wrong before", but no-one said exactly where the flaws in my scientific arguments for the moon's gravity are (or could be).

Am I "intolerant", if I don't accept any way-out claim at face value? Am I "intolerant", if I speak out when I think there's a basic flaw in a claim? Do you think this forum should be only for yes-men? Do you really think it's "unacceptable" (as you say) to argue strongly against an "alternative" claim on ATS? If you answer any of these questions with "Yes", you don't understand the basic premise of a discussion forum.

Regards
yf

Originally posted by yfxxx

Originally posted by thebox
Basically it boils down to intolerance; one becomes comfortable with their belief system and sets out to tear apart anything questioning it. THIS is the problem - INTOLERANCE. Yfxxx is an example of this; he's so unwilling to accept the mere possibility of truth in John's beliefs that he has to turn to "I HAVE A DEGREE, I'M RIGHT, YOU’RE WRONG". It's childish, unprovoked, and quite frankly unacceptable on a website explicitly devoted to the discussion (not argument) of ALTERNATIVE topics.

You obviously didn't understand at all what I said on this thread. It's not me who stomps his feet, and says "I'm right, I'm right, I'm right!!". I made arguments, based on science and logic, against a specific claim of Mr. Lear ("high" gravity on the moon). If you think my arguments are invalid, you can always point out what you think are flaws in it. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, so far nobody has clearly said where the errors in my specific argumentation are. All objections appear to go along the line of "science isn't perfect, and has been wrong before", but no-one said exactly where the flaws in my scientific arguments for the moon's gravity are (or could be).

Am I "intolerant", if I don't accept any way-out claim at face value? Am I "intolerant", if I speak out when I think there's a basic flaw in a claim? Do you think this forum should be only for yes-men? Do you really think it's "unacceptable" (as you say) to argue strongly against an "alternative" claim on ATS? If you answer any of these questions with "Yes", you don't understand the basic premise of a discussion forum.

Regards
yf

It's only way-out if you're confined to your convenient (and university implemented) belief system. My problem is the way in which you present your arguments. You are way too quick to insult the intelligence of others, repeatedly referring to them as 'stupid' and 'ignorant'. Surely this kind of behaviour *is* childish and unacceptable?

However, I'm not blind to your knowledge and would (as others probably would too) really appreciate your input if you were to refrain from the incessant "sly digs". When it comes down to the crunch aren’t we all fighting for the same things here?

Originally posted by thebox
My problem is the way in which you present your arguments.

Tough! Deal with it. Do you think I like the way many others present their arguments?

You are way too quick to insult the intelligence of others, repeatedly referring to them as 'stupid' and 'ignorant'.

Too quick? If you say so. But I don't use such terms without strong evidence .

However, I'm not blind to your knowledge and would (as others probably would too) really appreciate your input if you were to refrain from the incessant "sly digs".

No more "sly digs" than average here, I presume . And even if it's above average, I'm sure the mods will ban me before it gets out of hand

When it comes down to the crunch aren’t we all fighting for the same things here?

Err ... I'm not fighting for anything here. But I'm definitely not arguing for the same things as many other ATS members .

Regards
yf

Originally posted by yfxxx

Originally posted by thebox
My problem is the way in which you present your arguments.

Tough! Deal with it. Do you think I like the way many others present their arguments?

You are way too quick to insult the intelligence of others, repeatedly referring to them as 'stupid' and 'ignorant'.

Too quick? If you say so. But I don't use such terms without strong evidence

.

However, I'm not blind to your knowledge and would (as others probably would too) really appreciate your input if you were to refrain from the incessant "sly digs".

No more "sly digs" than average here, I presume

. And even if it's above average, I'm sure the mods will ban me before it gets out of hand

When it comes down to the crunch aren’t we all fighting for the same things here?

Err ... I'm not fighting for anything here. But I'm definitely not arguing for the same things as many other ATS members

.

Regards
yf

Who am I to judge anyway? Go about your business sir.

Just out of curiosity, when did you graduate?

Originally posted by thebox
Just out of curiosity, when did you graduate?

1992, at age 25.

Regards
yf

Of course Lear has been spreading disinformation. Whle he is of course right that UFOs are real and the government has interacted with them, his real purpose is to discredit the whole idea in a subtle way-by spreading tales so outlandish that most people wil conclude it's all phoney.

Originally posted by star07
Of course Lear has been spreading disinformation. Whle he is of course right that UFOs are real and the government has interacted with them, his real purpose is to discredit the whole idea in a subtle way-by spreading tales so outlandish that most people wil conclude it's all phoney.

Spoken with conviction! Any proof?

Originally posted by thebox
Spoken with conviction! Any proof?

I for one don't think any is needed as long as it can be considered an untested hypothesis. Come to think of it....your signature appears fairly definitive...can you prove that?

Let's see....John Lear is an apparently sane, intelligent, self-sufficient man, who is seemingly convinced of scenarios that are wildly out of agreement with the generally accepted reality of this world. "Who benefits?" is a question often asked when searching for motives. I doubt J. Lear is benefiting from any of this, other than having something to do when nothings on the telly. A person or organization who wanted this subject tainted with the smell of ridicule or comedy may just benefit from many of these "theories".

I think his hypothesis may have some reasoned support.

[edit on 4-5-2007 by MrPenny]

Originally posted by star07
Of course Lear has been spreading disinformation. Whle he is of course right that UFOs are real and the government has interacted with them, his real purpose is to discredit the whole idea in a subtle way-by spreading tales so outlandish that most people wil conclude it's all phoney.

I've tried to keep out of this debate, but I guess I'll say my piece. First, let me say that I think JL has a lot to offer these forums, but I do think that much of what he says is bogus. When he points to parking lots on the moon and makes other such extreme claims, I just shake my head. Combine this with his admission that much of what he says is merely to stir the pot and I have a hard time believing anything he says. I like to keep an open mind but when someone says things merely to stir things up, I tend to keep my distance so to speak.

Originally posted by MrPenny
I for one don't think any is needed as long as it can be considered an untested hypothesis. Come to think of it....your signature appears fairly definitive...can you prove that?
[edit on 4-5-2007 by MrPenny]

No... it's a contradiction in terms. I'm a big fan of contradictions.

Originally posted by yfxxxbut I think it's a bit rude to state that I didn't make any.

I didn't say you didn't make any, I said I am waiting to see them... I have not followed the other thread you posted. I just thought it interesting that you switched subjects.

Originally posted by yfxxx

Indeed. And I actually draw all the fire from the Lear-"protectors"

So if someone happens to agree with some or all of what John is saying they are now "Lear-protectors" Good grief what utter nonsense. That puts your credibility down a few notches.

Originally posted by brigand
When he points to parking lots on the moon and makes other such extreme claims, I just shake my head.

Well that reference was in regards to this image...



Posted by johnlear, on September 18, 2006
"Its obviously a 3 or 4 level parking garage, the ramp is on the left."

Well It DOES look like a parking garage

Originally posted by zorgon
I didn't say you didn't make any, I said I am waiting to see them... I have not followed the other thread you posted. I just thought it interesting that you switched subjects.

... from this thread, my argument against Mr. Lear's "neutral point" argument:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Again, maybe you think my argument is nonsense, or irrelevant, or unintelligible. But it's not non-existent .

Regards
yf

Is John Lear Spreading Disinfo?

dis·in·for·ma·tion
n.
1. Deliberately misleading information announced publicly or leaked by a government or especially by an intelligence agency in order to influence public opinion or the government in another nation: "He would be the unconscious channel for a piece of disinformation aimed at another country's intelligence service" (Ken Follett).

2. Dissemination of such misleading information.

Since Lear says he has no proof and he’s merely stating what he believes to be true (i.e. it’s “his” opinion) and we know based on his own admissions that in most (if not all) cases he’s merely repeating theories and claims made by others then I think it’s safe to say under the second definition he is indeed an agent of disinformation.

Judging by his ignorance of the basic laws of physics as demonstrated by his inability to grasp the fundamental flaw (as precisely outlined by rdube, yfxxx and others) in “his” theory that the Moon’s gravity is significantly greater than the scientifically accepted value perhaps Lear is merely an unwitting pawn in a larger game but then that begs the question how could an (allegedly) accomplished pilot (self-described) be so wrong?

Furthermore, the question needs to be asked is exactly what has John brought to the Ufologly table in general (or more specifically to ATS) after all these years since he first wrote and released the original Dulce/Krill papers on ParaNet and was subsequently ejected (banned) other than a glowing review he wrote of himself? Credibility???

www.ufomind.com...

Statement Released By:
John Lear

December 29, 1987

John Lear, a captain for a major US Airline has flown over 160 different types of aircraft in over 50 different countries. He holds 17 world speed record in the Lear Jet and is the only pilot ever to hold every airline certificate issued by the Federal Aviation Administration. Mr. Lear has flown missions worldwide for the CIA and other government agencies. A former Nevada State Senator candidate, he is the son of William P. Lear, designer of the Lear Jet executive airplane, the 8-track stereo, and founder of Lear Siegler Corporation. Lear became interested in the subject of UFO's 13 months ago after talking with United States Air Force Personnel who had witnessed a UFO landing at Bentwaters AFB, near London, England, and three small aliens walking up to the Wing Commander.

Note to the Press: The government of the United States continues to rely on your personal and professional gullibility to suppress the information contained herein. Your cooperation over the past 40 years has exceeded our wildest expectations and we salute you.

"The sun does not revolve around the Earth"

"The United States Government has been in business with little gray extraterrestrials for about 20 years"

So is John here to deny ignorance and enlighten you with super secret evidence obtained from alleged “government insider” sources or is he here to prey on the gullibility and ignorance of “true believers” to make himself feel superior about his (apparent) inability to deny his own ignorance and in the process (knowingly or unwittingly) furthering the agenda of others?

I know what I believe but to those of you praise Lear I urge you to think for yourselves and don’t let this man make a fool of you, this forum, and your beliefs.

Deny ignorance!

Originally posted by hangerateteen

Since Lear says he has no proof and he’s merely stating what he believes to be true

Thanks for your post hangerateteen and you bring up some excellent points that I would like to respond to.

(i.e. it’s “his” opinion) and we know based on his own admissions that in most (if not all) cases he’s merely repeating theories and claims made by others

I would be able to respond to this allegation a lot easier if I knew who was claiming the moon had a breathable atmosphere. Not only that but I would be delighted to learn that there is just ONE other nut-case on this planet that believes there is a breathable atmosphere on the moon. JUST ONE. The same goes for the gravity issue. Who are these people from whom I am "repeating theories and claims made by others?"

then I think it’s safe to say under the second definition he is indeed an agent of disinformation.

If I am an agent of disinformation I think I would pick something infinitely more believable than a breathable atmosphere on the moon. I mean who the heck is going to believe that?

Judging by his ignorance of the basic laws of physics as demonstrated by his inability to grasp the fundamental flaw (as precisely outlined by rdube, yfxxx and others) in “his” theory that the Moon’s gravity is significantly greater than the scientifically accepted value

I would object to the phrase "ignorance of the basic laws of physics" relating to the moons gravity debate. I have used the Bullialdus/Newton law of inverse-square, I have used accepted values of the size of the moon and the earth and I have used values for the neutral point as given to us by Werner von Braun and many of the astronauts.

Whereas yfxxx has produced no formula, no law of physics and has not put either of these together in a comprehensive mathematical equation that would refute my position on the moons gravity. Not even NASA uses corliolis force to strengthen their claim of a neutral point of 24,000 miles.

perhaps Lear is merely an unwitting pawn in a larger game but then that begs the question how could an (allegedly) accomplished pilot (self-described) be so wrong?

I would object to the word "allegedly" describing 'accomplished pilot'. I know of no evidence that I was an 'accomplished' pilot. About the only thing you can say about my career is that I'm still alive. And I certainly never described myself as accomplished. As a matter of fact I know of no other pilot that admitted to being 320 miles off course because he fell asleep at the controls. And I certainly wouldn't call being 320 miles off course 'accomplished'.

Furthermore, the question needs to be asked is exactly what has John brought to the Ufologly table in general (or more specifically to ATS) after all these years since he first wrote and released the original Dulce/Krill papers on ParaNet and was subsequently ejected (banned) other than a glowing review he wrote of himself? Credibility???

Neither the Dulce or the Krill papers were released on Paranet. And just as a point in fact I didn't write the Krill papers, they were written by John Grace, (Val Valerian). The Dulce papers, that I wrote, were distributed by me by U.S. mail and never went on Paranet.

I know what I believe but to those of you praise Lear I urge you to think for yourselves and don’t let this man make a fool of you, this forum, and your beliefs.

I haven't seen much praise lately although I could sure use some. Matyas wrote some very nice words but those may have been for the bottle of Courvoisier XO I promised to share with him

I would really appreciate that you clarify and or modify your above statements, hangerateteen, so they more accurately reflect the truth. Again, thanks for your post it is always welcome.

Originally posted by johnlear
I would be able to respond to this allegation a lot easier if I knew who was claiming the moon had a breathable atmosphere. Not only that but I would be delighted to learn that there is just ONE other nut-case on this planet that believes there is a breathable atmosphere on the moon. JUST ONE.

The same goes for the gravity issue. Who are these people from whom I am "repeating theories and claims made by others?"

Maybe I am mistaken but is it not your claim that some people at NASA already know the moon has a breathable atmosphere? Or did you come up with this theory on your own, Please forgive me, as I am slightly confused on how you came to be the first and only person to believe the moon has a breathable atmosphere

Originally posted by kleverone

Maybe I am mistaken but is it not your claim that some people at NASA already know the moon has a breathable atmosphere? Or did you come up with this theory on your own, Please forgive me, as I am slightly confused on how you came to be the first and only person to believe the moon has a breathable atmosphere

Of course NASA knows. So do millions of others. We are talking about 'publically' here kleverone. That informatin is not in the public domain nor is it likely to be for many years to come. Thanks for your post.

Originally posted by johnlear
I would object to the phrase "ignorance of the basic laws of physics" relating to the moons gravity debate. I have used the Bullialdus/Newton law of inverse-square, I have used accepted values of the size of the moon and the earth and I have used values for the neutral point as given to us by Werner von Braun and many of the astronauts.

Whereas yfxxx has produced no formula, no law of physics and has not put either of these together in a comprehensive mathematical equation that would refute my position on the moons gravity. Not even NASA uses corliolis force to strengthen their claim of a neutral point of 24,000 miles.

You want a formula? Ok, that's easy ! I explained my point in words, pointed to links explaining the physics behind it in more detail, but admittedly, I haven't explicitly posted a formula for the location of Lagrangian Point L1 (your "neutral point") of the Earth-Moon system. So, here we go! From this page

en.wikipedia.org... ,

the distance r of L1 from the moon's center is given approximately as

r = R * (1/3 * Mm/Me)^(1/3)

where:

R = distance earth-moon (average: 384,400 km)
Mm = Mass of the moon
Me = Mass of the earth
(Note: ^(1/3) means "to the power of 1/3", which is the same as taking the 3rd root)

With the textbook values (i.e. those in the "public domain") of Mm/Me = 0.0123, you get

r = 384,400 km * (1/3 * 0.0123)^(1/3) = 384,000 km * (0.0041)^(1/3) =
384,400 km * 0.16 = 61,524 km = 38,237 miles

That was the formula to calculate L1, your "neutral point" on the direct earth-moon line. Because R (earth-moon distance) is not constant, the distance of L1 from the moon's center varies between ~36,100 and ~40,300 miles (for distance from moon surface, subtract ~1,080 miles).

You see, a "neutral point" of ~38,000 miles from the moon is perfectly explainable using the "public" values for the moon's mass (and thus surface gravity). And to say it for about the tenth time: The fact, that Apollo reported their "neutral point" still further out (~43,000 miles) can be explained, because Apollo didn't always travel on the direct earth-moon line.


Mr. Lear, I know that you think that I don't have a point, regardless of what I say. Therefore the above calculation was meant for the benefit of those who have not yet made up their mind on the issue.

Regards
yf