Discovery Launches at 11:38 EDT. Expects to Reach and Dock With ISS in 44 Hours!

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
While there are, and have been moderately powerful directed energy weapons in space for some time, there is nothing strong or advanced enough to do what you claim to do on the earth's surface from orbit... One day it will be possible, but not yet.

Can you prove that to me? Can you at least try to prove that for me? Or can you even make it LOOK like your trying to prove this to me? Give me the impression that one day, you will prove this to me? I'll leave it to you to figure out how.
I'll see ya then.

Cuhail

reply to post by Cuhail


In order for them to prove that to you, tangible evidence would have to exist.

So far, all the evidence has required the wearing of your "imagination hat" to believe in it.

Originally posted by COOL HAND
I am still a little unclear as to why you need to use legal methods to expose an illegal program? If it does exsist, doesn't that give you the right to use whatever methods you need to expose it?

Your kidding right? You can't really be that ignorant, can you? The people that have that data are not in the habit of being friendly when you use illegal means to view that data. I find it a lot unclear how you can think otherwise.

But seeing as your so eager to help bring this out... maybe I can find you some addresses to search at I hear GM can use some company...

Originally posted by Cuhail

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
While there are, and have been moderately powerful directed energy weapons in space for some time, there is nothing strong or advanced enough to do what you claim to do on the earth's surface from orbit... One day it will be possible, but not yet.

Can you prove that to me? Can you at least try to prove that for me? Or can you even make it LOOK like your trying to prove this to me? Give me the impression that one day, you will prove this to me? I'll leave it to you to figure out how.
I'll see ya then.

Cuhail

Sorry, I don't have physical proof or even a website to direct you too. All I have is my father's word (he worked on SDI, among other space based weapons platforms) and the word of two family members that work for subsidiaries of Raytheon and Hughes.

None of them said it's anything like "particle beam" weapons or such stuff that you instantly think of when someone says directed energy weapons. Several platforms are laser platforms (to be used against enemy satellites, the lasers and technology was not up to par at the time of development to use against missiles or anything) and several platforms are a type of directed jamming weapon, designed to jam enemy communications from orbiting satellites while leaving other satellites nearby operational.

But nothing too exciting like space ray guns or anything, lol. In reality, most classified stuff is pretty boring and not nearly as advanced as people think they are.........like where in the world do people get off thinking the military, for the most part, used technology in their classified projects 50 years more advanced than we know of presently? I myself have seen some really, really advanced stuff, however it is still done with today's level of technology, just used in a very specific manner.

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
But nothing too exciting like space ray guns or anything, lol. In reality, most classified stuff is pretty boring and not nearly as advanced as people think they are.........like where in the world do people get off thinking the military, for the most part, used technology in their classified projects 50 years more advanced than we know of presently? I myself have seen some really, really advanced stuff, however it is still done with today's level of technology, just used in a very specific manner.

Thanks for the post ITF. Let me assure you that if you had ever been read into any really classified project that you would not be posting on ATS. And that is a fact.

Now you might see and work on some projects you think is really, really advanced but let me assure you that that techonology is just the top of the iceberg. You are not 'accidentally' allowed access to what you think is advanced technology without there being a reason. Nothing like that happens 'accidentally'.

So let me respectfully suggest you stop with your 'nothing advanced like ray guns' for the simple reason you are not cleared, nor have you been read into any projects of that type that would enable you to give an opinion. And if you had ever been read into anything like that you would not be giving your opinion here on ATS.

But thanks anyway for the post, as uninformed and full of malarky as it is.

Originally posted by johnlear
Let me assure you that if you had ever been read into any really classified project that you would not be posting on ATS. And that is a fact.

Too funny... if that was true then that means you know nothing because you post on ATS... nice job debunking yourself there John.

(of course that goes without saying, your posts prove you know nothing about how the real world works)

But thanks anyway for the post, as uninformed and full of malarky as it is.

Originally posted by Access Denied
Too funny... if that was true then that means you know nothing because you post on ATS... nice job debunking yourself there John.

(of course that goes without saying, your posts prove you know nothing about how the real world works)

But thanks anyway for the post, as uninformed and full of malarky as it is.

*Smashes keyboard with caveman like ferocity searching in vain for applause hot key*

You beat me to it. Nicely played. Inconsistency #9,287 noted and tallied.

Originally posted by PartChimp
Inconsistency #9,287 noted and tallied.

Damn I lost count, is it that high already?

It should also be noted that AFAIK ITF never claimed he was "read into any really classified project" in which case that’s straw man argument #4,327 (correct me if I’m wrong, I may have lost count on that tally too) from Mr. Lear.

[fixed quote]

[edit on 10-11-2007 by Access Denied]

Originally posted by johnlear

Thanks for the post ITF. Let me assure you that if you had ever been read into any really classified project that you would not be posting on ATS. And that is a fact.

I'll take your word for it. I imagine being read into a program is being sat down and brought up to speed on everything, showing you the big picture and related information? If that's the case, I have not bee "read into" anything. As most people know, it is not necessary to read someone into a ton of project background for them to do certain tasks. Only the project leaders and managers need to be privy to information that paints the big picture. I have worked on classified projects, for both private and military applications, however I have never been in a position where I needed to be read into a bunch of details that were a waste of my time as they do nothing to help me perform my specific function.

You are not 'accidentally' allowed access to what you think is advanced technology without there being a reason. Nothing like that happens 'accidentally'.

Where did this 'accidentally' stuff suddenly come from? Did I infer something in my post that indicated I though I had been 'accidentally' exposed to classified data and/or materials? If by 'accidentally' you mean me talking to my family, who are all basically in the same field and share cross-platform expertise in certain areas, then I guess your right. We do sit around and BS about things we are doing,....classified or not. And yes, most of it is really mundane stuff. In fact most of our conversations have nothing to to with the nuts and bolts technology we are working with, or even the program/project details....but rather the laughable Dilbert style management (or mis-management more like it) of some of the teams we are on. In short, bitching about the lack of organization and common sense within the workplace.

So let me respectfully suggest you stop with your 'nothing advanced like ray guns' for the simple reason you are not cleared, nor have you been read into any projects of that type that would enable you to give an opinion.

Yes, you got me there. I have not been read into any classified 'ray gun' projects.

But let me also respectfully suggest that you have not 'cleared' or 'read into' classified information that backs up your (ridiculous and laughable) moon theories...but that has not stopped you from opening your mouth and removing a lot of folks doubt concerning your sanity, reasoning abilities, and ability to dodge direct questions. Your even being blasted on it right here, and they all have a point.

It's embarrassing that folks like you are backed up by a for-profit business, giving it some sort of legitimacy in some ignorant people's eyes, and encouraged to keep it up despite my three favorite words; logic, reason and common sense.

I have to add something in this post so I don't get banned again for being off topic (even though half the threads in forum go off topic by the people that probably U2U the mods in mass crying about us debunkers derailing threads)
Ah, let me see.... I don't believe the shuttle docked at a secret space station before or after linking up with the ISS because the OP pushing the theory has not been read into classified material concerning the subject, and by his own reasoning should not be opening his mouth about it due to his ignorance of official information.


[edit on 10-11-2007 by IgnoreTheFacts]

originall posted by accessdenied
(of course that goes without saying, your posts prove you know nothing about how the real world works)


originally posted by PartChimp
*Smashes keyboard with caveman like ferocity searching in vain for applause hot key*
You beat me to it. Nicely played. Inconsistency #9,287 noted and tallied.

[originally posted by accessdenied
Damn I lost count, is it that high already?

Hey Guys, thanks to both of you for the posts. Let me respectfully caution you into banging into each other on this thread. The National Safety Council has a “Safety First!” caution for this three day weekend.

Thanks.

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts

I'll take your word for it. I imagine being read into a program is being sat down and brought up to speed on everything, showing you the big picture and related information?

No. Thats not how it works.

As most people know, it is not necessary to read someone into a ton of project background for them to do certain tasks.

Yes, that is how it works.

Only the project leaders and managers need to be privy to information that paints the big picture.

Not necessarily as a matter of fact project leaders and managers rarely have the "big picture". Each person gets as little information as he needs to do a particular job. Project managers may or maynot know what the next level is. It really doesn't matter because the lie is different at every level.

I have worked on classified projects, for both private and military applications, however I have never been in a position where I needed to be read into a bunch of details that were a waste of my time as they do nothing to help me perform my specific function.

Nobody is ever given 'a bunch of details' that they didn't need.

but rather the laughable Dilbert style management (or mis-management more like it) of some of the teams we are on. In short, bitching about the lack of organization and common sense within the workplace.

Yes, that is a consistent, constant and ever present comlaint.

But let me also respectfully suggest that you have not 'cleared' or 'read into' classified information that backs up your (ridiculous and laughable) moon theories

I think I have made that quite clear on many occasions. And I have stated many times that any clearance I had expired 25 years ago and that clearance had nothing to do with what we are talking about.

...but that has not stopped you from opening your mouth and removing a lot of folks doubt concerning your sanity, reasoning abilities, and ability to dodge direct questions. Your even being blasted on it right here, and they all have a point.

Many would agree with you on that statement.

It's embarrassing that folks like you are backed up by a for-profit business,

It's equally embarrassing into having made any money off of it yet. (You're talking about the Official John Lear Tin Foil Hats right?)

giving it some sort of legitimacy in some ignorant people's eyes, and encouraged to keep it up despite my three favorite words; logic, reason and common sense.

All of us are ignorant. Some more than others.

I don't believe the shuttle docked at a secret space station before or after linking up with the ISS because the OP pushing the theory has not been read into classified material concerning the subject, and by his own reasoning should not be opening his mouth about it due to his ignorance of official information.

As I said previosly we are all ignorant. Some more than others. Thanks for sharing.

reply to post by IgnoreTheFacts


You keep whining about Debunkers getting hassled here on ATS, it simply doesn't happen IF they can stay within the bounds of the TAC.

There are NO legions of "True Believers" U2Uing the staff about threads or posts. Matter of fact, MOST of the staff are Skeptics at heart but understand that people who want to discuss the fantastic are free to do so within the bounds of the TAC.

The same goes for those who want to discuss fanciful (or as you like to call them, "insane") theories. You can't seem to avoid decrying the fact a for "profit business" allows John Lear to have a forum.

It's called FREE ENTERPRISE, it's the backbone of a free society. Your holier than thou concern that people will run wildly into the night with mental illness after reading John's stuff is simply laughable.

The contention that otherwise mentally healthy people will "believe" John Lear or completely change their perceptions/world view because he has a forum on a website or because he was a pilot is just ludicrous.

If you want to counterpoint John Lear you would be well advised to NOT come off like a preacher who knows what's best for others IMHO.

You would also be well advised to avoid coming off like a Nanny Socialist WRT things you don't like or believe in and Capitalist WRT to things you do approve of.

It's called FUN ITF, lots of people ENJOY reading John's theories.

To make the statement that JL presents his theories as facts is to take the subjective (your opinion of the matter) and present it as the objective. In other words, when you do that you are guilty of that which annoys you so deeply. John has said a many times he has no proof, he expects no one to believe him, he doesn't seek to convince and he is only offering his theories as data points for those who are interested in researching a completely different perspective.

If ATS was nothing more than a repository of established facts and scientific data we would close up shop, there's a glut of that available everywhere on and off line.

Debunkers are as welcome here on ATS as anyone else, it'd be pretty BORING without them. The ONLY problem has been it appears some of the Debunkers have a Social Grace deficiency. That is certainly NOT limited to the Debunkers, we've had to ban several "True Believers" who couldn't figure out how to act too, John Lear has been banned for this in the past himself but worked it out with us in a reasonable way. Is he perfect? Hell no, but he does take more heat for simply expressing his thoughts than most so we cut him a little more slack, not much but a little.

And finally the ABSURD notion that we "support" John because he "brings lots of traffic and therefor revenue to ATS" is pure bollocks. I've said it before, the traffic John creates is statistically INSIGNIFICANT and if you think $40.00 a month (about what this forum generates) covers the cost of the bandwidth for the Moon images we have here you don't understand the costs of bandwidth.

I guess the point is that you folks who have this overpowering desire to tell us how we should run our business and who should be allowed to have what and who should be allowed to say what are just missing the whole point of User Generated Content and the realities of the future of media.

PEOPLE decide what's worth their time, what is and what is not enjoyable and I feel sorry for those who would get in their way. Especially the grouchy Preacher types.

Springer...

[edit on 11-10-2007 by Springer]

Originally posted by Springer
reply to post by IgnoreTheFacts

 

And finally the ABSURD notion that we "support" John because he "brings lots of traffic and therefor revenue to ATS" is pure bollocks.

[edit on 11-10-2007 by Springer]

Still waiting for those FACTS please...

Ive been informed of facts then is that so Springer?


If so which ones?

1.) Secret space stations?

2.) The twin towers were struck by planes generated from holographic projectors?

3.) secret underground submarine bases over 1000km from the ocean which is apparently why 2 nuclear submarines dissapeared without trace yet they have been discovered but thats only what we are lead to believe through mainstream media?

4.) a huge soul collector on the moon?

5.) neptune has an ocean?

6.) venus has people on it?

Take your pick from the above please

Fett has been spewing that bollocks for months in spite of the FACTS that he has been informed of.


FACTS which FACTS are you talking about? please point me too them and i dont mean the ones i mentioned above.

Oh and i dont spew bollocks, i try to deny ignorance and point out things that certainly are bollocks themselves

Just alone the thought of a holographic projector....

And ill say it again: Justin Oldham is certainly worthy of the conspiracy master title.




The ATS Motto is DENY IGNORANCE

[edit on 10-11-2007 by Fett Pinkus]

Originally posted by zorgon
Your kidding right? You can't really be that ignorant, can you?

Don't question J. Lear and minions because, "it's only opinion for discussion"....but feel free to suggest someone is ignorant of the "opinions for discussion". How can one be ignorant of topics that are admittedly (?) not based on fact? Even if zorgon, et al, maintains his or her contributions are "facts" supporting the premise.

What Springer may be missing is the lack of "discussion" in J. Lear threads. Real, penetrating questions, backed up with current science or contrary evidence is simply ignored. For all of the advancement to intelligence and understanding that happens here.....you may as well go beat your head on a brick wall. Same effect.

What's "intelligent" about this again? And please don't take offense....it's your tagline.

[edit on 10-11-2007 by MrPenny]

Originally posted by Springer
missing the whole point of User Generated Content

Not at all. The point that seems to be missed is its availability for critical review. And if it's ludicrous, the critique may be somewhat scathing. Welcome to the other side of User Generated Content and the future of media.

[edit on 10-11-2007 by MrPenny]

[edit on 10-11-2007 by MrPenny]

Originally posted by MrPenny
What's "intelligent" about this again? And please don't take offense....it's your tagline.

Our tagline doesn't have the word "intelligent" in it anywhere.

I think I finally see where you all are missing the point...

"Denying Ignorance" does NOT mean Denying Speculation, does NOT mean Denying Discussion whether or not some deem it worthy, REAL or fantastic.

"Denying Ignorance" means denying limit imposed by others, it means denying what is fed as truth by the few at the expense of exploring other possibilities by the many.

It pretty much means denying exactly what you lot are demanding. LIMITING our Member's discussions based on what YOU deem unworthy.

Springer...

edit to add: "Scathing" is not allowed period, welcome to REAL UGC.

[edit on 11-10-2007 by Springer]

reply to post by Springer


From the ATS home page, verbatim;

We are the Internet's largest and most popular community dedicated to the intelligent discussion and debate of "alternative topics."

I added the bold to the text in question.

You want to be a source for User Generated Content, yet appear to be trying to muzzle some of the content. Completely violating the spirit and intent of the concept.

So I will avoid "scathing". I have no problem with nutjobs posting whatever they want to on the Internet. I do expect to be able to freely express my own opinion on the content; without being referred to as "ignorant", "in the dark", or worse still....have my username perverted into some childish jibe.



[edit on 10-11-2007 by MrPenny]

[edit on 10-11-2007 by MrPenny]

Originally posted by MrPenny

or worse still....have my username perverted into some childish jibe.

Thanks for the post MrPenny and please accept my most sincerest of apologies for perverting and making fun of your name and calling you MoneyPenny.

Sometime I will think something is funny that others don't but I meant no offense.

Again, my apologies for calling you MoneyPenny when I know full well your username is MrPenny.

reply to post by johnlear


That's nice of you John, thank you.

But to be honest.....your sincerity flew out my window a long time ago.

Thank you for your contribution.

John, if I may ask a question raised in the BAUT forum: how do we know when the Space Shuttle docks with and departs the Space Station? If we're relying on NASA for this info then for all we know the SS could dock a day earlier or a day later than they're telling us. Indeed, how do we know it docks at the ISS at all?