For the UFO people, John Lear's take on the alleged UFO video released.

[Pamela Brown]

On 1/3/2018 at 9:24 AM, Lance Payette said:

I attended the 1989 MUFON (Mutual UFO Network) annual conference in Las Vegas, where Lear and fellow wacko Bill Cooper discussed the Kennedy assassination, including a film that they assured us showed Greer, the driver of the limousine, shooting Kennedy.  Alas, none of the rest of us could see it.  It was my first MUFON conference and my first great awakening as to (1) how truly bizarre superficially sane people can be, and (2) what qualifies as "evidence" in the hands of a rabid conspiracy theorist.  I was simply agog at both Lear and Cooper, the latter of whom was shot and killed by sheriff's deputies about 50 miles from my home at the time.  But there they both were, on the same stage as presenters of the quality of Jacques Vallee.  (Vallee's diary, Forbidden Science, labels the conference "a fiasco" and notes that Lear's sanity was questioned).  I honestly had no idea Lear was still alive, but I would take anything he says about anything with a rather large grain of salt.

I became involved with some people in Minnesota who knew Cooper and had a copy of the Cooper version of the Zapruder film back in the 80's.  I have seen that film.  It has the LMF logo on it, which was attached to all the versions connected with the Zapruders, so I was immediately wary.  It is a very poor black-and-white copy of the film imo.  I don't think it showed Greer shooting JFK, but what I did notice is that there seemed to be a kind of momentum from Greer turning around to face JFK, the fatal shot being fired, and Jackie climbing out of the back of the limo.  That was the first time I had made a connection to the possibility that Jackie might have been trying to get away from Greer.  

 

Edited January 4, 2018 by Pamela Brown

[Cory Santos]

16 minutes ago, Pamela Brown said:

 

I disagree, if simply because JFK and the USSR were involved into a race to the moon, and we don't know exactly what prompted this.  If this extraordinary scenario was not a direct factor in the assassination of JFK it is certainly something that needs to be taken into account.  And from my standpoint, it does not matter whether or not there were/are UFO's/aliens, but what JFK and Kruschev may have believed about them that may have contributed to the moon race and perhaps the assassination of JFK. 

 

Moreover, I am still troubled by the fact that Kruschev is then taken out by factions in his government.  Why?  Were these people connected at all to JFK?  Were they somehow involved with LHO?  Why did they take him out?  Its been two decades since I read "Kruschev Remembers" and I dont recall his thoughts on the matter.  But two world leaders taken out of power within a year of each other.  A "Strange coincidence"?  A very interesting one at the very least and very relevant to this forum for discussion.

Thank you for your insight Ms. Brown.

 

[Pamela Brown]

21 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

Moreover, I am still troubled by the fact that Kruschev is then taken out by factions in his government.  Why?  Were these people connected at all to JFK?  Were they somehow involved with LHO?  Why did they take him out?  Its been two decades since I read "Kruschev Remembers" and I dont recall his thoughts on the matter.  But two world leaders taken out of power within a year of each other.  A "Strange coincidence"?  A very interesting one at the very least and very relevant to this forum for discussion.

Thank you for your insight Ms. Brown.

 

I think that is a good point.  Kruschev's star fell quickly after JFK was assassinated.

I think the question is not whether, but how, KGB was involved with LHO.  I see this situation as a group of Russian dolls, one inside the other.  When Nosenko came to the US, for example, he thought he knew 'everything' about LHO.  JJA tortured him because he didn't believe him.  But Nosenko may have been led to believe he knew everything, when, in fact, he did not.  And if Nosenko did not know, he could not talk.  JJA should have figured this out, imo.

Edited January 4, 2018 by Pamela Brown

[Joe Bauer]

I assume Doug Caddy is very, very busy at this point in time writing a book?

However, I hope he does see this thread eventually and shares his E.Howard Hunt E.T. conversation story once again.

[Joe Bauer]

I've listened to the Coast To Coast AM radio talk show since the 1990's and have heard John Lear being interviewed several times on that show.

In regards to the thread subject, Lear ( to me ) is one of those characters that you're not quite sure of for varying reasons.

Kind of like Bob Lazar.

But enough of what they say indicates they both know what they are talking about "in certain key areas."  Enough to not discount totally what they have to say and share.

Lear of course does have unique credentials in his flying history and birth father. I am certain he has had some very interesting discussions with people connected to some high agencies.

After listening to or reading their tales you are just left to judge for yourself ( using your own lifetime experience trust gauge) how much to believe of what they say as true or not.

Astronaut Gordon Cooper and his UFO/ET story intrigues me much more than either Lear or Lazar.

It would be extremely interesting to hear or read about anyone who was close to JFK regarding whether they ever heard JFK discuss the topic of UFOs/ETs.

I sure haven't heard of such.

Lastly, if there was any one area of secrecy in the highest levels of command and government in this country and the USSR in 1963 that would send a fear of even death for revealing...it could only be this one. Hence no one sharing about it back then and even now.

Edited January 9, 2018 by Joe Bauer

[Cory Santos]

58 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

I've listened to the Coast To Coast AM radio talk show since the 1990's and have heard John Lear being interviewed several times on that show.

In regards to the thread subject, Lear ( to me ) is one of those characters that you're not quite sure of for varying reasons.

Kind of like Bob Lazar.

But enough of what they say indicates they both know what they are talking about "in certain key areas."  Enough to not discount totally what they have to say and share.

Lear of course does have unique credentials in his flying history and birth father. I am certain he has had some very interesting discussions with people connected to some high agencies.

After listening to or reading their tales you are just left to judge for yourself ( using your own lifetime experience trust gauge) how much to believe of what they say as true or not.

Astronaut Gordon Cooper and his UFO/ET story intrigues me much more than either Lear or Lazar.

It would be extremely interesting to hear or read about anyone who was close to JFK about whether they ever heard JFK discuss the topic of UFOs/ETs.

Most, if not all, acquaintances and close family relatives of JFK are gone. But has anyone here ever read or heard of thoughts or comments by JFK ever shared on this subject to anyone else? I sure haven't

Lastly, if there was any one area of secrecy in the highest levels of command and government in this country and the USSR in 1963 that would send a fear of even death for revealing...it could only be this one. Hence no one sharing about it back then and even now.

Lear is the reason Bob Lazar went public.

Having served as Mr. Lear and his wife's attorney for some time, and having spent time with him in his "lair", I can say this, if you could see the photos, documents, and things he has, you would be amazed.  Spending time with him is always interesting as is hearing his opinions which are always based on something.  You do not see him profiting from writing books.  His dad was a genius.  I do know that he feels the JFK assassination was a conspiracy.  He has some good reasons to back it up as well.

His wife is a former actress/model/singer.  She has a picture in her office where she played Jackie (I cant recall the story but I could ask) and truthfully, she could have easily been a body double for her back then, you could not tell them apart.

If he says this video is faked, I tend to believe him.  I was thinking it looked fake when I first saw it.  His opinion pretty much nailed it.  He gives sound reasons for it.

As for Cooper, I am not familiar with him or his story.  It is strange though, everyone seems to have a motive in the assassination EXCEPT LHO.

[Denny Zartman]

If others believe a UFO discussion is relevant, of course I have no choice but to defer to them. Obviously the moderators here agree that this subject is appropriate for discussion. I'm glad that others can find relevance in the subject and explain why they find it relevant. Certainly the debate over "fake news" and the current climate of conspiracy theories deserves further attention.

This is just my opinion: When I'm doing research on the JFK assassination and I see a source that is also featuring materials on UFO's, 9-11, Illuminati, chemtrails, the Bermuda Triangle, Sandy Hook, the Boston bombing, ect. I tend to shy away from using that source. That's just me.

If I were a visitor to this forum that knew little to nothing on the JFK assassination and I saw members seriously entertaining the concept of a base on the dark side of the moon, my initial reaction would be unfavorable. Indeed, in my mind, it would confirm negative stereotypes of JFK assassination researchers as a group.

Perhaps I would be wrong to have that reaction, but I have to be honest, that would be my first impression. These other subjects, whether or not they have merit, I would reflexively consider to be tangential to the main subject. Instead of using that source as a resource for reliable information, I would seek out a source that I believed had the intellectual rigor to stay focused on their stated main topic of interest. (I'm not trying to cast aspersions on anyone here who is discussing UFO's. I'm just trying to be honest in describing what would be my first reaction to an online source mixing the JFK assassination with certain other subjects.)

Secondly, I don't believe that a UFO discussion on a non-UFO forum does intellectual justice to the UFO discussion. As a sub-topic, by its very nature it will be examined and debated in less detail than the main topic.

It seems that many people automatically take UFO to mean "little green men in flying saucers." An unidentified flying object is any object flying through the air that can't be identified. To conflate sightings of unidentified aircraft with "JFK was about to expose ET's and that's why he was killed" is too big a leap of logic for me personally. (I know no one here is saying that was the reason, I'm just using that as an example of how a truly thorough and thoughtful discussion on the subject of UFO's would require examining multiple complex aspects and a long historical record that is probably just as filled with false leads and intentional disinformation as the JFK assassination is, in my opinion, beyond the scope of this forum.)

Picking through the the disinformation around the JFK assassination to find the truth is difficult enough without adding a superficial examination of UFO's.

Again, these are only my opinions. Others disagree, and I accept that.

[Paul Brancato]

1 hour ago, Denny Zartman said:

If others believe a UFO discussion is relevant, of course I have no choice but to defer to them. Obviously the moderators here agree that this subject is appropriate for discussion. I'm glad that others can find relevance in the subject and explain why they find it relevant. Certainly the debate over "fake news" and the current climate of conspiracy theories deserves further attention.

This is just my opinion: When I'm doing research on the JFK assassination and I see a source that is also featuring materials on UFO's, 9-11, Illuminati, chemtrails, the Bermuda Triangle, Sandy Hook, the Boston bombing, ect. I tend to shy away from using that source. That's just me.

If I were a visitor to this forum that knew little to nothing on the JFK assassination and I saw members seriously entertaining the concept of a base on the dark side of the moon, my initial reaction would be unfavorable. Indeed, in my mind, it would confirm negative stereotypes of JFK assassination researchers as a group.

Perhaps I would be wrong to have that reaction, but I have to be honest, that would be my first impression. These other subjects, whether or not they have merit, I would reflexively consider to be tangential to the main subject. Instead of using that source as a resource for reliable information, I would seek out a source that I believed had the intellectual rigor to stay focused on their stated main topic of interest. (I'm not trying to cast aspersions on anyone here who is discussing UFO's. I'm just trying to be honest in describing what would be my first reaction to an online source mixing the JFK assassination with certain other subjects.)

Secondly, I don't believe that a UFO discussion on a non-UFO forum does intellectual justice to the UFO discussion. As a sub-topic, by its very nature it will be examined and debated in less detail than the main topic.

It seems that many people automatically take UFO to mean "little green men in flying saucers." An unidentified flying object is any object flying through the air that can't be identified. To conflate sightings of unidentified aircraft with "JFK was about to expose ET's and that's why he was killed" is too big a leap of logic for me personally. (I know no one here is saying that was the reason, I'm just using that as an example of how a truly thorough and thoughtful discussion on the subject of UFO's would require examining multiple complex aspects and a long historical record that is probably just as filled with false leads and intentional disinformation as the JFK assassination is, in my opinion, beyond the scope of this forum.)

Picking through the the disinformation around the JFK assassination to find the truth is difficult enough without adding a superficial examination of UFO's.

Again, these are only my opinions. Others disagree, and I accept that.

I agree completely.

[Pamela Brown]

On 1/3/2018 at 11:19 AM, David Andrews said:

If we're going to dish von Braun rumors, his niece claimed that when he was terminally ill he told her not to believe in aliens, because they were an enormous military hoax.

That is odd.  Do you know the neice's name?  Is there a cite for this statement?  WVB asked Dr. Carol Rosin to continue his work in keeping an open mind toward ET's and making sure they were not automatically considered enemies, so that makes this statement puzzling.

[David Andrews]

On ‎1‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 2:09 PM, Pamela Brown said:

That is odd.  Do you know the neice's name?  Is there a cite for this statement?  WVB asked Dr. Carol Rosin to continue his work in keeping an open mind toward ET's and making sure they were not automatically considered enemies, so that makes this statement puzzling.

This "rumor" was on the internet about 10 years ago, on a page with a pic of vB's niece, and her story.  I notice the mantle has been taken up by Carol Rosin.  Who knows the veracity of vB's supposed warning?  Rosin's version is featured on sites that advertise that you, too, can become one of the Illuminati if you pay for the initiation:

http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com/2016/08/the-hoax-alien-invasion-how-wernher-von.html

Who pays Rosin to spread this "info" over a dozen different internet sites?  Is this Rosin's career now?

My own belief is that "aliens among us" (as separate from UFOs), and alien invasions, are a hoax conveniently developed for release after World War II, both for its own confusion value and to stimulate anxiety over a Communist invasion.  The hoax succeeded too well: it's now too big and enduring to be disavowed, and still has its xenophobic applications.

Edited January 8, 2018 by David Andrews

[Guest]

On ‎1‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 12:12 PM, Denny Zartman said:

If others believe a UFO discussion is relevant, of course I have no choice but to defer to them. Obviously the moderators here agree that this subject is appropriate for discussion. I'm glad that others can find relevance in the subject and explain why they find it relevant. Certainly the debate over "fake news" and the current climate of conspiracy theories deserves further attention.

This is just my opinion: When I'm doing research on the JFK assassination and I see a source that is also featuring materials on UFO's, 9-11, Illuminati, chemtrails, the Bermuda Triangle, Sandy Hook, the Boston bombing, ect. I tend to shy away from using that source. That's just me.

If I were a visitor to this forum that knew little to nothing on the JFK assassination and I saw members seriously entertaining the concept of a base on the dark side of the moon, my initial reaction would be unfavorable. Indeed, in my mind, it would confirm negative stereotypes of JFK assassination researchers as a group.

Perhaps I would be wrong to have that reaction, but I have to be honest, that would be my first impression. These other subjects, whether or not they have merit, I would reflexively consider to be tangential to the main subject. Instead of using that source as a resource for reliable information, I would seek out a source that I believed had the intellectual rigor to stay focused on their stated main topic of interest. (I'm not trying to cast aspersions on anyone here who is discussing UFO's. I'm just trying to be honest in describing what would be my first reaction to an online source mixing the JFK assassination with certain other subjects.)

Secondly, I don't believe that a UFO discussion on a non-UFO forum does intellectual justice to the UFO discussion. As a sub-topic, by its very nature it will be examined and debated in less detail than the main topic.

It seems that many people automatically take UFO to mean "little green men in flying saucers." An unidentified flying object is any object flying through the air that can't be identified. To conflate sightings of unidentified aircraft with "JFK was about to expose ET's and that's why he was killed" is too big a leap of logic for me personally. (I know no one here is saying that was the reason, I'm just using that as an example of how a truly thorough and thoughtful discussion on the subject of UFO's would require examining multiple complex aspects and a long historical record that is probably just as filled with false leads and intentional disinformation as the JFK assassination is, in my opinion, beyond the scope of this forum.)

Picking through the the disinformation around the JFK assassination to find the truth is difficult enough without adding a superficial examination of UFO's.

Again, these are only my opinions. Others disagree, and I accept that.

The other side of the coin is:  If you had spent decades, as I have, truly neck-deep in the UFO community, the Near Death Experience community, the Shroud of Turin community, and the Paranormal In General community, you would realize that this forum and the JFK assassination community in general are MIRROR IMAGES of those other communities.  At least 50% of the discussions here are a JFK version of "we never went to the moon," "there are alien bases on the dark side of the moon," et al.  It is a mistake to think that a forum such as this epitomizes serious JFK assassination research.  To a large extent it epitomizes the "alien bases on the dark side of the moon" wing of JFK assassination research.  All of the other communities likewise have their genuinely scholarly wings, their genuinely sane and serious research wings, their debunker wings and their Wacky True Believer annexes.  You have to be deep enough into the field to be able to identify the Wacky True Believers.

Within every lunatic fringe, the Wacky True Believers take themselves very, very seriously.  This is one of the hallmarks of a lunatic fringe.  Any suggestion that they occupy the lunatic fringe is met with foaming-at-the-mouth hostility.  No, they are the keepers of the flame, the ones with the secret truths

I have experienced, in the company of a diehard skeptic, a so-called "daylight disk" at close range.  There was no doubt this was something highly unusual, and there was even a "psychic" component associated with it.  I have likewise experienced a number of paranormal phenomena, mostly relating to survival after death.  Those experiences and vast studies have convinced me that the UFO phenomenon is not a mundane one and that personal consciousness in some form survives bodily.  However, I am not a Wacky True Believer in any way, shape or form and am painfully aware that the lunatic fringes of all communities in which I am interested, including the JFK assassination research community, are very large, very vocal, and very self-promoting.  Why the Wacky True Believers do not realize the silliness of what they spout (or perhaps spout it even though they do recognize its absurdity) is a great psychological mystery.

The "UFO angle" to the JFK assassination, like the "UFO angle" to Marilyn Monroe's death, has persisted for many years, from the early years after the assassination.  Oh, yes, there are those here who actively promote it.  It is, of course, complete and utter nonsense.  it is simply the Lunatic Fringe of the UFO Community Meets the Lunatic Fringe of the JFK Assassination Community.  If it has relevance, that relevance is perhaps in making at least some readers step back and ask themselves, "Hey, how much of the other stuff on this forum that sounds superficially plausible is actually equally nutty?  How many of the people here who superficially sound like sane and serious researchers are actually Wacky True Believers?"

Do not make the mistake, however, of thinking that a forum such as this is ABOVE such nonsense, that the discussions here uniformly represent the scholarly or sane and serious wings of JFK assassination research.  Oh, NO, NO, NO, NO.  If you make that mistake, you have fallen into the very trap that the Wacky True Believers want you to fall into.

What I do find odd here is the mix.  You will not find scholarly, sane and serious, or even debunking members of the UFO community at, for example, the site of David ("The Queen is a shape-shifting reptilian alien") Icke.  He is too silly even to bother with, even though he has legions of Wacky True Believers who have made him rich.  This forum, however, attracts a broad spectrum of participants even though large swaths of the discussion are devoted to conspiracy theories of the "alien bases on the dark side of the moon" variety and virtually none of the discussion is devoted to the conclusions that the most scholarly, sane and serious researchers have consistently reached.

Edited January 9, 2018 by Guest

[Paul Brancato]

Lance,

you say you you saw a flying disc while in the company of a skeptic, and that there was a psychic component. Would you tell us more?

[Joe Bauer]

4 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

The other side of the coin is:  If you had spent decades, as I have, truly neck-deep in the UFO community, the Near Death Experience community, the Shroud of Turin community, and the Paranormal In General community, you would realize that this forum and the JFK assassination community in general are MIRROR IMAGES of those other communities.  At least 50% of the discussions here are a JFK version of "we never went to the moon," "there are alien bases on the dark side of the moon," et al.  It is a mistake to think that a forum such as this epitomizes serious JFK assassination research.  To a large extent it epitomizes the "alien bases on the dark side of the moon" wing of JFK assassination research.  All of the other communities likewise have their genuinely scholarly wings, their genuinely sane and serious research wings, their debunker wings and their Wacky True Believer annexes.  You have to be deep enough into the field to be able to identify the Wacky True Believers.

Within every lunatic fringe, the Wacky True Believers take themselves very, very seriously.  This is one of the hallmarks of a lunatic fringe.  Any suggestion that they occupy the lunatic fringe is met with foaming-at-the-mouth hostility.  No, they are the keepers of the flame, the ones with the secret truths

I have experienced, in the company of a diehard skeptic, a so-called "daylight disk" at close range.  There was no doubt this was something highly unusual, and there was even a "psychic" component associated with it.  I have likewise experienced a number of paranormal phenomena, mostly relating to survival after death.  Those experiences and vast studies have convinced me that the UFO phenomenon is not a mundane one and that personal consciousness in some form survives bodily.  However, I am not a Wacky True Believer in any way, shape or form and am painfully aware that the lunatic fringes of all communities in which I am interested, including the JFK assassination research community, are very large, very vocal, and very self-promoting.  Why the Wacky True Believers do not realize the silliness of what they spout (or perhaps spout it even though they do recognize its absurdity) is a great psychological mystery.

The "UFO angle" to the JFK assassination, like the "UFO angle" to Marilyn Monroe's death, has persisted for many years, from the early years after the assassination.  Oh, yes, there are those here who actively promote it.  It is, of course, complete and utter nonsense.  it is simply the Lunatic Fringe of the UFO Community Meets the Lunatic Fringe of the JFK Assassination Community.  If it has relevance, that relevance is perhaps in making at least some readers step back and ask themselves, "Hey, how much of the other stuff on this forum that sounds superficially plausible is actually equally nutty?  How many of the people here who superficially sound like sane and serious researchers are actually Wacky True Believers?"

Do not make the mistake, however, of thinking that a forum such as this is ABOVE such nonsense, that the discussions here uniformly represent the scholarly or sane and serious wings of JFK assassination research.  Oh, NO, NO, NO, NO.  If you make that mistake, you have fallen into the very trap that the Wacky True Believers want you to fall into.

What I do find odd here is the mix.  You will not find scholarly, sane and serious, or even debunking members of the UFO community at, for example, the site of David ("The Queen is a shape-shifting reptilian alien") Icke.  He is too silly even to bother with, even though he has legions of Wacky True Believers who have made him rich.  This forum, however, attracts a broad spectrum of participants even though large swaths of the discussion are devoted to conspiracy theories of the "alien bases on the dark side of the moon" variety and virtually none of the discussion is devoted to the conclusions that the most scholarly, sane and serious researchers have consistently reached.

I was a non-posting/non-contributing member of the forum reading audience for years.

This audience is many, many times greater in number than actual posters.

I well knew and highly appreciated ( like most other non-posting readers ) that this was an online forum where some of the most highly credentialed, educated and respected JFK researchers were willing to share, debate and inform others of what they have discovered in their "years" of hard, diligent, intelligently organized and probably expense sacrificing work in their pursuit of the JFK assassination truth.

Now retired and with more free time, the time spent checking into the forum on an almost daily basis as a non-posting reader was satisfying a lifelong yearning of mine ( from the age of 12 through my 60's ) to know so much more about the most serious, competent and thorough JFK research. 

Seeing Mark Lane himself posting here was a highlight.

Of course I knew, and still know, that I am not in this esteemed researcher league and only have in common my lifelong passion for the JFK truth which is as strong and sincere as these high bar researchers.

So it is with some guilt ( after reading Lance's posting above) that I must admit that I am one of those forum contributors who probably lowers this high research bar with my poorly informed but impassioned post responses . 

I most often stay out of most thread discussions as I still have enough respect for the integrity of the forum to stay put in the reading audience and let the big boys and girls share their truly worthy research findings uninterrupted.

Even so, when enticed by certain thread topics, I have decided to occasionally selfishly indulge myself by jumping up on the stage with you all. Call it an older age bucket list thing. Just wanted to feel more engaged with this passionate subject.

But I still wouldn't call my less informed engagement a strictly "fringe" one.

I do trust my common sense to keep me logically grounded in considering all the different realms of the JFK assassination research and speculations.

SS Agent William Greer didn't shoot JFK. He could barely keep the limo in a straight line with both hands on the wheel and his head turned 180 degrees backwards watching JFK get hit in the head at the same time.

 

Edited January 9, 2018 by Joe Bauer

[Douglas Caddy]

 

[Steve Thomas]

Separate the wheat from the chaff and go on.

 

That's the nice thing about these Internet forum thingys.

If you think something is a waste of your time, nobody forces you to read or comment on things you don't want to. The last time I looked, there were more than 242,000 posts covering 636 pages in this Forum alone going back to 2004.

Take your pick.

 

Steve Thomas