John Lear........disinfo agent???

Well said Undo.

The way I look at it, in response to some of Lear's more 'far out' claims... Unless you're fully aware of all the knowledge and experiences John Lear has been through, of course it may seem outragous. The fact is, you don't know how John has come to his conclusions, and you don't know what he knows that may have him believe certain bits of information.

For this reason, your ignorance, you choose to believe that John is giving disinfo. It's an assumption based on your lack of knowledge, and quite a weak reason to make such an 'outragous' claim.

"I don't understand it, therefore it's disinfo"

In my oppinion, that sort of mindset is even more harmful to the progress of the UFO community. Stop worrying about what the 'others' will think about us, and start thinking about the aquiring of truth -- no matter how 'far out' it sounds to others.

[edit on 21/9/07 by Navieko]

Originally posted by undo
A tin foil hat wacko is someone who, apparently, disagrees or has other theories that don't follow the mainstream thoughts or theories on the same subjects. This means every innovation and scientific discovery that changed the status quo before it, was the result of a tinfoil wacko at work.

Really? I thought it was just some semi-derogatory, funny term used to describe folks interested in "conspiracy theories". I didn't think it was one of those words or phrases that are really offensive. Kinda' funny really, when you picture it.

Edison was a "tinfoil wacko at work"?

Edit to add: How did your post warrant 4 stars? If ever there were some damning example of how juvenile the star system operates, that post is one of them.

[edit on 21-9-2007 by MrPenny]

reply to post by MrPenny

Edit to add: How did your post warrant 4 stars?

You will find that Undo word here is respected very highly.. Thats why

And its all good to have what ever thoughts you might want.. Its why we are here.. ITs just when you dont have respect for people thats when it comes off as childish/Jealous..

Everyone else who has questions for John have done a good job at keeping a level of respect. Thats all I look at. Respect those around you.
And calling people wackos is not a good start.. But hey, Ill play along, I keep my tin foil helmut locked up for when I really need it.. It has shiney buckles on it too!!!


I dont understand why you think its a cult following, are you serious guys?
I gave that post a star becasue of this...

A tin foil hat wacko is someone who, apparently, disagrees or has other theories that don't follow the mainstream thoughts or theories on the same subjects. This means every innovation and scientific discovery that changed the status quo before it, was the result of a tinfoil wacko at work.

That was very to the point, and insiteful. ..
I gave you a star to Mr. Penny.. so relax man...

[edit on 21-9-2007 by zysin5]

reply to post by MrPenny


That post got four stars because it supported the ideology of the Cult of Lear. And furthermore, WE DON'T WANT to be tinfoil wackos! Some alternative theories do actually get mainstream, such as Kennedy Assassination, that Bush was lying in the runup to Iraq, etc. And, thankfully, I think 9/11 truth and Roswell are on their way to mainstreamdom. However, if people start thinking we're tinfoil hatted freaks that will believe anything said by anybody, that may not happen.

reply to post by Navieko


You know what, that's the exact same half-baked justification that supporters of President Bush use to try to justify his choice to go to war in Iraq. "We don't know what kind of intelligence Mr. President may be privy to that we're not, so we must trust his judgment!"

If Lear has magical intelligence that makes his theories somehow credible, why doesn't he share it with us?

You might be a "Tin Foil Whacko" if:

1. you tripped over your tin foil hat on your way to the computer to join in and praise john lears moon pictures.

2. you astral traveled to venus and boarded the ring ships that look like green crayons, on the way there you met an alien ghost.

3. The blurrier the picture of the moon is...the more mines and parking lot buildings you manage to see and circle.

4. you believe that the moon has trees and bushes and you can go hang gliding up there.

geez...too easy I could do this all night.

Originally posted by uberarcanist
That post got four stars because it supported the ideology of the Cult of Lear.

I kind of figured it was the result of blind allegiance. I read it several times and it never did seem to really stand out or seem to be particularly special.

It got four stars inside of 30 minutes. Maybe less.

Alright, who's the brown noser?


[edit on 21-9-2007 by MrPenny]

Originally posted by uberarcanist
You know what, that's the exact same half-baked justification that supporters of President Bush use to try to justify his choice to go to war in Iraq. "We don't know what kind of intelligence Mr. President may be privy to that we're not, so we must trust his judgment!"

If Lear has magical intelligence that makes his theories somehow credible, why doesn't he share it with us?

I wasn't using that justification to support or give credibility to John Lear's claims, but rather used that as justification to show why we shouldn't make baseless assumptions, based on your ignorance. Such as; 'John Lear is a disinfo agent'.

Nice try though?

reply to post by Navieko


I've more than defended my belief that John Lear is practicing intentional deception. Have you or can you defend your belief that John Lear is telling the truth?

Heres some helpful links and a video.


William Henry & John Lear

John Lear: UFO Secrets Revealed Pt.1
There are 12 parts to this interveiw.

Direct link to more John Lear videos, and Interviews

Zorgon's Post on SSS


[edit on 22-9-2007 by zysin5]

Originally posted by uberarcanist
I've more than defended my belief that John Lear is practicing intentional deception. Have you or can you defend your belief that John Lear is telling the truth?

I've seen what you're basing your speculations on -- and it's a flawed mindset to go on if you're trying to be open minded and find the truth. I already stated why, but if you want to go ahead and feel so confident in your beliefs regardless -- you should atleast acknowledge that it's only your oppinion and try not to send it across as something obvious that people 'need to know'.

I wouldn't have a problem with that. I think people can make up their own minds.

One thing you learn after soul searching, research and a willingness to be honest with yourself is, that even in light of the great knowledge resources available, most of our science is in a constant state of flux. It's ever changing and expanding. It doesn't get that way by researchers being afraid to look at new ideas and concepts, even when they may not appear to jive with other ideas and concepts. The difference is, the average joe is told to just believe the avenue that currently has the most support - not because it may be true, entirely true, or even partially true, but because it currently has the most support. Ergo, science is not a popularity contest.

Meanwhile, somewhere in the backdrop, new thoughts and ideas are being researched and in some cases, put into action, oftentimes to the tune of millions or even billions of dollars. These things often don't see the light of a textbook because the data is sensitive, has military/political advantage or provides an advantage to a priviledged few.

[edit on 22-9-2007 by undo]

Originally posted by Navieko
The fact is, you don't know how John has come to his conclusions, and you don't know what he knows that may have him believe certain bits of information.

And apparently neither do you, but that does not stop you from taking the flying leap of absurdity it takes to believe in John, does it?

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
And apparently neither do you, but that does not stop you from taking the flying leap of absurdity it takes to believe in John, does it?

Where did you ever get the idea I believed everything John says? He and I are both very different people, and I'm sure share very different perspectives on particular matters. What I certainly do believe and am not afraid to say, is that the possibility of his claims being truth -- is a definite reality.

It's the possibilities I'm intrigued in, IgnoreTheFacts, and unlike most -- I'm willing to expand and spend time on some of them, drawing up my own conclusions on whats truth and whats not. As long as I'm intrigued, I'll delve deeper -- and if the need be, defend my right to do so.

reply to post by Navieko


I won't apologize for either having my reservations about Mr. Lear or communicating them to others. I do think people need to know what the Lear skeptics think so that they are getting all sides of the story. I am not forcing and cannot force people to believe anything, but I do feel obligated to inform people about potential sources of disinformation.

Hi,

There ia a Huge Castle on the Venus.

www.t-xxx.com...

seen is believing!!

Sorry, I couldn't post pictures yet.

reply to post by 1question


I'm not convinced that it's not an artifact...that is, a pixelated distortion.

A friendly heads up for those of you who are just joining us here..

Troll list
Fellow friends.. Here is a small list of people who have made it their mission to come on ATS and Troll.. However we have a new type of troll here.. They use more than one line to bait us.. But they are constantly negtive about all matters, and love getting people worked up..

josephus maximus

IgnoreTheFacts

uberarcanist -- has not been as negtive in other threads as the top two. So Im not discarding ubercasters thoughts on here.. He just stated in a past post, He has no repsect for John.

uberarcanist
Now on most issues I absolutely can't stand ITF but I really applaud what he's done here...he has given JL all the respect he deserves, which is NONE.

That was my threshold. As if you read up on the man, you will find he might know something you dont not if you have not logged that many hours in the sky..

ARe you a pilot Uberarcanist? How many years of exp do you have in the sky?

So maybe I should make a thread.. about these guys, and it would read
IgnoreTheFacts/uberarcanist Are they trolls????

But that would be feeding the trolls.. And its simple, you just ignore them

Anyone else who wants to question all of this, dont feel that you cant!!
Just if you are going to ask, please use respect, and have more than just 1 liner to say you dont belive.. There is plenty of into out here.. Just check my above post.. I shared some links with you all

Also, I find it very hypocritical that some on here have been (in my opinion, wrongly) calling out anti-Learites

Wong I am calling you 3 out, becasue its not just this thread.. You 3 tend to Troll on other threads aswell... Its a lie, when you say Im calling out people who dont belive John!!! Dang!! I dont even belive everything he says!! But do know this.. He is a pilot, and has information that NONE of us have!! Im wonder if those 3 are pilots? And have some information they would like to share other than saying John is disinfo??

And I wont ignore someone for their own opinion.. Its just when folks are negtive on just about every other thread, I get to my wits end with them, and no longer wish to hear what they have to say. For the record Im not ignoring these folks becasue of they said here in this thread!! It was just the last straw for me IMHO..




[edit on 22-9-2007 by zysin5]

reply to post by zysin5


To me this looks like an attempt by Lear backers to start personally attacking Lear's critics once they realize they can't credibly defend Lear's flimsy theories and can't explain why he has a penchant for making highly questionable posts. Myself, ITF, and others have presented a large amount of evidence that supports a theory that Lear is knowingly propagating disinfo. The other posters haven't addressed this evidence, and instead just accuse us of being "close-minded". But who is really close minded, us, who have thoroughly researched Lear and his theories and come to our conclusion, or the Lear supporters who refuse to believe that Lear could be practicing dishonesty and ignore the massive evidence that he is?

Are we really trolls? I would say no, but don't just take my word for it. In another thread, forum moderator chissler (see link below) stated that as long as someone could come up with something to support their claims, they were not a troll. Can anyone believably claim that anyone zysin has listed has not provided supporting evidence?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Furthermore, I will add that zysin5 doesn't seem to understand the policy about one-liners. It is a common misconception that the rule against one-liners is absolute, that is, that all posts must be more than one line. But this is not the case. A one-liner is only against the rule when it doesn't present anything of substance. Quoting directly for the handbook, the only thing that is discouraged is "short comments that do not further the flow of discussion." I believe that anyone who thinks I'm not following the rules doesn't have much of a case that my one-liners weren't furthering discussion.

Also, I find it very hypocritical that some on here have been (in my opinion, wrongly) calling out anti-Learites for supposed minor rule infractions while defending who is perhaps the grossest rulebreaker on ATS. It's common knowledge that hoaxers are routinely thrown off the forum, if the mods practiced consistency, Lear would have been gone a long time ago as well. The mods' inaction on him is by no means proof positive that he has abided by the posting standards of the board.

[edit on 22-9-2007 by uberarcanist]

[edit on 22-9-2007 by uberarcanist]

Also, I find it very hypocritical that some on here have been (in my opinion, wrongly) calling out anti-Learites for supposed minor rule infractions

Personally, I wouldn't remove anyone for stating an opinion that was unpopular. You're entitled to your opinion, and have the right to express it with civility and decency. Frankly, that's all anything really is - a popularity contest, although perhaps it shouldn't be in some cases (like science, for example).

Doesn't it bother you to know that science is often the product of the same scenario? The most popular theory wins, whether that popularity is the truth or not. It's usually predicated by previous theory, which makes it all the more popular, even if the previous theory turns out to be false. This is how you can find hundreds of years of faulty science in older texts, because they built on each other's work rather than simply find the truth of the matter.

Empirical process is nothing more than one guy advancing the research of another. Occassionally, they are both right and it's a win-win scenario, but frequently, it's just a popularity contest.