Bob Lear on Brad Meltzers Decoded - UFO's

reply to post by Pimander


i think foster was just saying unfortunately because it would have been nice to get a view of the base without having to do the 4 hour hike up tikaboo. campfire hill is where ive camped over 50 times now. its not as good as other spots near 375, but works for me.

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by Pimander

 

i think foster was just saying unfortunately because it would have been nice to get a view of the base without having to do the 4 hour hike up tikaboo. campfire hill is where ive camped over 50 times now. its not as good as other spots near 375, but works for me.

That sounds far more like an appropriate response than, "bah," I can't cope with debating with anything apart from intelligent members or sycophants. Star for you.

reply to post by Pimander


Ive seen the debate... Both sides could do with a little more civility... But I must say, both of you guys raise really good points. Esp you.

reply to post by bknapple32

Thank you for your comments.

I ask questions that I think are deserving of an answer. I am NOT claiming to have all the answers and I don't have fixed conclusions regarding the case.

If being challenged makes a member chip out that is not convincing and highlights the fragility of their position. My points/questions above still stand unchallenged because there is no logical basis on which to challenge them.

reply to post by Pimander


Ill say this... Gariac has been a well respected member of the A51 forum. So understand Im usually going to side with him, regardless if I disagree with him.

That being said... I'll try and look at your points again and see if I can play devils advocate, because honestly Im still on both sides of the fence on this.

I can say that from experience talking with people, skeptics and believers alike, who know John Lear; they all agree he has lost a few fries from his happy meal over the years. So despite being an expert in the field( and I dont care what anyone says, the man is an expert in aviation), his judgement and perhaps memories of certain things may have gotten fuzzy.

reply to post by bknapple32

John Lear's witness testimony was 23 years ago when he saw the craft. What does long term memory have to do with that? There were plenty of other witnesses too.

It also has no bearing on the question that certain members continue to duck, as I am absolutely certain you and every other person including Gariac and Foster understand. They weren't around then and DO NOT KNOW what was in the skies. Others including a witness on this thread were. Think about it! I'm right about this and will not let anyone deceive the members. I'm a big fan of honesty.

reply to post by Pimander


How could a "big fan of honesty" believe in what Bob Lazar says. So much of what he says has been proven false.

I was going through some National Geo videos from wherever XBMC pulls them. One was on Big Foot. [Yep, I found a fatal flaw in their analysis, but that is another story.] But there is a line in the video that goes "Eyewitness testimony is notoriously inaccurate." Well Doh!, everybody knows that. Er, make that nearly everybody knows that.

Hence I don't give a fig what somebody saw. Bob Lazar could claim he saw big foot for all I care. The guys word is a huge pile of steaming fecal matter.

Originally posted by Pimander
reply to post by bknapple32

 

John Lear's witness testimony was 23 years ago when he saw the craft. What does long term memory have to do with that? There were plenty of other witnesses too.

It also has no bearing on the question that certain members continue to duck, as I am absolutely certain you and every other person including Gariac and Foster understand. They weren't around then and DO NOT KNOW what was in the skies. Others including a witness on this thread were. Think about it! I'm right about this and will not let anyone deceive the members. I'm a big fan of honesty.

edit on 4/2/12 by Pimander because: (no reason given)

The point being made is that John Lear could have witnessed something that was 20-30 years advanced in technology. The doesn't necessarily make it a flying saucer. I'm at least not claiming to say that I KNOW what they did or didn't see. However I can say that all it would take is one excited night where you have a friend claiming to know first hand about alien technology, a crazy light in the sky, and anyone could think what they saw was alien. But it does take a lot of dots to be connected to take Lazar's story as fact.

However, what de-bunkers never really answer well is how Lazar knew when and where to go to see such an event. Whether or not it was a flying saucer, Lazar certainly gained sensitive knowledge that every day people in 1989 didn't have. And that is why I do not dismiss his story.

reply to post by bknapple32

I don't claim to know everything either but I don't dismiss the possibility that they really saw non-conventional craft. I actually have other reasons for KNOWING THAT THEY EXIST. I can't prove it but I know.

Bang on the button regarding knowing when to look for unusual craft. Respect. HONESTY is the best policy.

Originally posted by bknapple32
However, what de-bunkers never really answer well is how Lazar knew when and where to go to see such an event. Whether or not it was a flying saucer, Lazar certainly gained sensitive knowledge that every day people in 1989 didn't have. And that is why I do not dismiss his story.

My opinion - Lazar either knew someone at Area 51, or knew someone who knew someone. His interests in such matters, electronics, homebrew jets, etc. His fellow aficionado's at Desert Blast circa 1986 - look at some of their credentials. I have no doubt some of them were working on secret projects.

Originally posted by gariac
How could a "big fan of honesty" believe in what Bob Lazar says. So much of what he says has been proven false.

You know very well that I am NOT saying I believe everything Lazar says. You are again ignoring what I have already responded to to throw up smoke. Member will see that as they have already as indicated by the many posts supporting my position.

What I am saying QUITE CLEARLY is that as there are multiple supporting witnesses AND further sightings of non-conventional craft then that part of his testimony is likely to be true.

You have nothing to add to this discussion other than:

1. An attempt to mislead members into thinking that there was no attempt to film the craft.

2. Falsely pretending (otherwise known as lying) to know whether there were non-conventional craft MANY years before you turned up there like a second-rate spook.

3. A misrepresentation (lie about?) of Glenn Campbell's position on what he knew about what happened in the skies near the range in 1989.

4. Refusal to tell members when you first visited the range in the hope they think you are an expert on something you know nothing about.

5. Continually ask questions about stuff that has already been answered previously in order to duck questions put to you.


An utterly dishonest approach to debate. You are just trying to put up smoke to deviate from my obviously correct points!


We are discussing events 23 years ago. How is snooping around the range today relevant?

Here is a question for you to duck. If you aren't trying to deceive members into thinking you know more than you do, answer it. Or are you concerned members might think that you are irrelevant to this debate or trying to deceive them?

So, what year did you first visit the range/GroomLake. How many years out of date is your UNPROVEN testimony that there are no non-conventional tests. Or are you going to keep that from the members?

edit on 4/2/12 by Pimander because: NOT OFF THE HOOK!

Originally posted by bknapple32
I can say that from experience talking with people, skeptics and believers alike, who know John Lear; they all agree he has lost a few fries from his happy meal over the years. So despite being an expert in the field( and I dont care what anyone says, the man is an expert in aviation), his judgement and perhaps memories of certain things may have gotten fuzzy.

Name these people who claim to know John Lear who have said this. Bear in mind that there are legal implications to claims like that. Last time I communicated with him, which was quite recently, he seemed pretty lucid.

Originally posted by Pimander

Originally posted by bknapple32
I can say that from experience talking with people, skeptics and believers alike, who know John Lear; they all agree he has lost a few fries from his happy meal over the years. So despite being an expert in the field( and I dont care what anyone says, the man is an expert in aviation), his judgement and perhaps memories of certain things may have gotten fuzzy.

Name these people who claim to know John Lear who have said this. Bear in mind that there are legal implications to claims like that. Last time I communicated with him, which was quite recently, he seemed pretty lucid.

Why on Earth would I name names after you throw out statements like "bear in mind there are legal implications". Not a good way to get what you want out of someone.Especially when it is obvious you aren't well versed on the law. Anything I am typing is not slander. Slander under the law is only achieved through oral utterance, and whatever I heard, that you read on here, becomes hearsay. So spare me the dramatics. We had it civil between you and I, until you tried to call me out and scare me with your legal mumbo jumbo. Fortunately I know what Im talking about

reply to post by bknapple32

defamation
['de-fe-'ma-shen]

1: communication to third parties of false statements about a person that injure the reputation of or deter others from associating with that person
(see also libel, slander New York Times Co. v. Sullivan in the Important Cases section)

FindLaw: Legal Dictionary

libel
['li-bel]

Anglo-French, from Latin libellus, diminutive of liber book

1: "complaint § 1" (used esp. in admiralty and divorce cases)

2 a: a defamatory statement or representation esp. in the form of written or printed words

specif
: a false published statement that injures an individual's reputation (as in business) or otherwise exposes him or her to public contempt
b: the publication of such a libel

FindLaw: Legal Dictionary

A libel plaintiff must generally establish that the alleged libel refers to him or her specifically, that it was published to others, and that some injury (as to reputation) occurred that gives him or her a right to recover damages (as actual, general, presumed, or special damages). The defendant may plead and establish the truth of the statements as a defense.

FindLaw: Legal Dictionary

reply to post by Pimander


Lol, you really want to play this game? Ok. For it to be libel, John Lear himself would have to come find me, (Which Ill gladly make my address available to him) take me to court, and then prove in court that my comment on ATS has somehow injured his reputation. Because I am not the first on ATS to say anything like this, Im at the back of a very long line. But here's the kicker. If these statements are opinions, they are immune from libel laws. So.. game over on this one... But good try.

reply to post by bknapple32

Argue with the dictionary mate, I didn't write it.

You claimed that "talking with people, skeptics and believers alike, who know John Lear; they all agree he has lost a few fries from his happy meal over the years." If you can't say who these people who, "all know John Lear," are then I say you are making it up. Unsubstantiated BS.

Originally posted by Pimander
reply to post by bknapple32

 

Argue with the dictionary mate, I didn't write it.

You claimed that "talking with people, skeptics and believers alike, who know John Lear; they all agree he has lost a few fries from his happy meal over the years." If you can't say who these people who, "all know John Lear," are then I say you are making it up. Unsubstantiated BS.

edit on 5/2/12 by Pimander because: (no reason given)

Funny you bring up unsubstantiated BS..

John Lear 5-10-2007 "I am one of 3 persons who knows where one of the arrowhead shaped 233 gram pieces of Element 115 is, or at least was. I was not with Bob when he hid it but he told me who the other person was that knew it and drew me a map. There was no discussion as to when, if ever, it would be retrieved. I will take no part in any attempt to retrieve it nor will I discuss where it is. I have no idea whether the Element 115 is still where I was told it was. It would not be easy to check. I drive by the site occasionally but I cannot get to exactly where it is. There are many considerations why I say I will take no part in its retrieval. "

Originally posted by Pimander It also has no bearing on the question that certain members continue to duck, as I am absolutely certain you and every other person including Gariac and Foster understand. They weren't around then and DO NOT KNOW what was in the skies. Others including a witness on this thread were.

If you cant prove you have something when you claim you do, its unsubstantiated bs isnt it?

reply to post by bknapple32

I'm not John Lear and John Lear is not Bob Lazar who told him where it is. I didn't claim that. You are just trying to deflect and throw up smoke.

So did you make it up then? Did you fabricate these people, "who all know John Lear?"

MEMBER NOTE: We now have a thread with 3 smoke machines all ducking questions. What a joke.

Originally posted by Pimander
reply to post by bknapple32

 

I'm not John Lear. I didn't claim that.

So did you make it up then? Did you fabricate these people, "who all know John Lear?"

MEMBER NOTE: We now have a thread with 3 smoke machines all ducking questions. What a joke.

Speaking of jokes... You completely ducked your own quote that I brought up. And youve been defending the side of John Lear, Gariac brought up element 115 a dozen times before any kind of answer was given. And Foster was kind enough to bring up John Lears own quote on 115, doing exactly what you call bs on..

And again, Im not going to bring peoples names up, because it doesnt matter. I could say joe jimbo bob. You undoubtedly wont know who Im referring to anyways. I live in Vegas, hence I know locals that you have never nor will ever, hear of.

reply to post by bknapple32

OK, so you made it up. If it is untrue that, "people who know John well," said it, that makes it libel.

I have already given my answer several times about the 115. I don't know. It's that simple. All I know is that Knapp and Lear said they saw some. However, I KNOW FOR A FACT that Foster, Campbell (as he admits) and Gariac do not know what was in the skies near the range in 1989.

The members also know that they are ducking the question about when they first turned up at the range like second rate spooks. We all know why that is.