It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

John Lear's theory regarding the "Soul Collector"

page: 11
9
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
sleeper or john

1) you say suicide is bad, and you should not do it. what happens to a soul of a suicide and what penalties do those souls have placed upon them?


They get sent back to this life, and put into more challenging circumstances, sometimes they are aware of why they are back here but they physically can’t speak of it.



2) if true, does the vatican know of this knowledge of the soul collector?

They have their own soul collector---
:



3) is there from what you've learned only one earth reality as we know it, and not multiple parallel realties where the earth has similar outcomes. is there just one reality for the earth?


There is no parallel realties---most of us have trouble dealing with the one we have.




4) is there such a thing as area 51 in england?


Dozens of places around the world harbor ET activity, even in England.




posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by sleeper

Originally posted by andy1033
sleeper or john

1) you say suicide is bad, and you should not do it. what happens to a soul of a suicide and what penalties do those souls have placed upon them?


They get sent back to this life, and put into more challenging circumstances, sometimes they are aware of why they are back here but they physically can’t speak of it.


1) can you explain how they sent back to this life, if they died. also how are they aware of what happened, but cannot speak of it, do you mean just have feelings?

2) what about retardation in humans, has this got something to do with souls, i heard this was one of the reasons why the nazis considered retarded people as just animals. does something to do with the soul, make some people retarded?

3) you say we are meant to be happy in our lifes, why is it then that humans mostly bring out the best of themselves with suffering. is christianity meant to help us understand suffering for a reason?

4) because of what happened before, can someone be destined to commit suicide, like you see some people that just seem to be that way from birth?

5) have you ever heard of the underground base in ashford, kent, england. it is supposed to be shaped exactly like the pentagon but underground, it is supposed to be used for military intelligence in england. have you ever heard of it, and what is it's purpose?

thx for your answers

[edit on 13-7-2006 by andy1033]



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033

1) can you explain how they sent back to this life, if they died. also how are they aware of what happened, but cannot speak of it, do you mean just have feelings?


The body dies the soul remains intact and can be put into a baby’s body. Ever see pictures of babies in Third World countries, bloated bellies, flies all over them---living in despicable poverty---those are not by chance. Do they deserve our help---absolutely---are we able to help them---what do you think?



2) what about retardation in humans, has this got something to do with souls, i heard this was one of the reasons why the nazis considered retarded people as just animals. does something to do with the soul, make some people retarded?


Some retarded people know why they are here, they have full knowledge of the other side, but they can’t share that knowledge with anyone because many don't speak.



3) you say we are meant to be happy in our lifes, why is it then that humans mostly bring out the best of themselves with suffering. is christianity meant to help us understand suffering for a reason?


There are those that believe that martyrdom is the only way to heaven or righteousness. The fact is all of us are going to suffer in this life we don’t need to add to it unless we are masochist.

Most of us don’t need more pain in our lives we need more joy and happiness---so it behooves us to take every opportunity to be happy whenever we can.




4) because of what happened before, can someone be destined to commit suicide, like you see some people that just seem to be that way from birth?


No one is destined to commit suicide, some people are unhappy coming into this world and they let everyone know it.





5) have you ever heard of the underground base in ashford, kent, england. it is supposed to be shaped exactly like the pentagon but underground, it is supposed to be used for military intelligence in england. have you ever heard of it, and what is it's purpose?


I have no info on that base



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 09:54 PM
link   

It’s a lot easier than that, the two basic rules---don’t take this life too seriously and take advantage of the gifts you have been given. The only way you are not moving forward is if you are an ass-ole.


O.k. so how do you suggest we live it up alttle? Drink and be marry?
Forget the lowfat no fat cholesterol stuff?
I'm kind of not feeling/understanding the don't take life to seriously bit.
Explain it so us dummies can understand..
I guess I probably won't be moving forward considering some folks at home think I'm an A Hole at times.
Sorry, but I had to throw that in there.



You return to do those things only if they are important to you---they are not requirements.


There goes that choice again...



Anything that you can use is not a waste of money, hybrid cars will be in more demand because of the cost of gas, I think they are a good investment---but I don’t have one yet.


Common sense it seems? For all things tangible?



If you are asking if ET wants us to go green---totally up to you---makes no difference to them.


No, not green for Earth but for our well being as humans ( a healthy future for our existance and for future generations)



ET exist in absolute abundance and lack in nothing---and there is no cosmic law that states humans must deprive themselves of anything.


So are you saying it's o.k. to gloat some? Although, I think we as americans tend to do that already.



I know it sounds so simplistic but that’s because life really is not that complicated---we make it so.


So we make life complicated by our normal thought process?
This sounds to me like we are in some sort of game and eventually we can ace it to finish. At our own pace. So those curve balls that come are self generated?

My thing here is if we don't take life a bit seriously we will continue to make the same mistakes over and over.

I really need some closure to all this. My . hurts.
I just want to make sure I'm on the right path.
So do we go to the light in the tunnel, stay put or go elsewhere?
Door number one, number two or number three



[edit on 13-7-2006 by Diego]

[edit on 13-7-2006 by Diego]



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Originally posted by Postal76



This thread should be renamed "John Lear vs. the Scientific Method." Breathable atmosphere on the moon? Sure, why not?!?




Hello Postal76. I imagine that there is a question in this statement but I be darned if I can figure out what it is or why not.


John, why do you put so much blind faith in Sleeper? Is it because his outrageous claims are suitable to your taste?


When I first started reading Are Extraterrestrials Real? As real as the nose on Your Face, I was intrigued. Whoever this was, was coming up with exactly the same stuff I have learned over the past 20 years. I even u2u him and told him that I thought this thread was for me exclusively because I understood exactly what he was telling everyone. Some of the 'zingers' he put in that probably went over everybody's . were hilarious. Some were just plain awesome, and I mean truly awesome. But I waited and nobody responded....its like everyone missed it. "Hey you Guys!!! Did you hear what sleeper just said!!!!!!"So I again u2u'd sleeper and mentioned the post and asked "Do you think anybody got that?" And he u2u back and said probably only you. Anyway its not that his claims are 'outrageous' that are suitable to my taste, its that what he says makes so much sense based on everything I have figured out in the past 20 years. If you can't buy it, well then thats whats best for you and its ok.



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 11:09 PM
link   
John,

Not that it matters, but I've never seen you raise or discuss the issue of your identity. You have a right to call yourself what you like, but how do we know if your the real John Lear? Why would he post here?

Thanks..



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
John,

Not that it matters, but I've never seen you raise or discuss the issue of your identity. You have a right to call yourself what you like, but how do we know if your the real John Lear? Why would he post here?

Thanks..

Originally posted by SteveR
John,

Not that it matters, but I've never seen you raise or discuss the issue of your identity. You have a right to call yourself what you like, but how do we know if your the real John Lear? Why would he post here?

Thanks..




OK. You got me SteveR. I am the fake John Lear. The REAL John lear stands tall, a man among men. Handsome, close cropped white hair, a lady killer he is, slim and trim even at 64. Well read, well spoken. A diplomats diplomat. World traveler, comfortable sipping tea in a caravanserai in Kandahar as sipping coffee (masbut, sukran) downtown Sana'a. Only if you look carefully in the left lapel of his dinner jacket can you see the International Order of the Knights Grand Cross of the Star of Asia. His tanned face would blush if you brought it to his attention. He can expound on the trials and tribulations of Omega navigation, simplify the mechanics of celestial navigation and detail GPS to the unwashed. An inveterate storyteller he will have you rolling in the aisles with his irreverant stories of flying for the CIA in Laos, his cattle run flying cows from Khartoum to feed the army in South Yemen. Running guns from Greece to South Africa, his part in the 'October Surprise'. He would have you believe that he is the only pilot to have flown as captain, on the same day, in the same Boeing 707, a revenue flight for both El Al (Israels national airline) and Air Sinai (One of Egypts passenger airlines). Lear holds more Federal Aviation Adminstration issued airman certificates than any other airman. He is type rated in 23 aircraft and has flown over 100 different aircraft in over 50 different countries. Retired for 6 years now I am sure the REAL John Lear would not be posting on ATS. I would doubt he even had a computer. I would imagine John Lear sipping an expensive Sauvignon Blanc in the afternoon while waiting for his 5 year old grandson to finish preschool and come to his grampa to read "McElligots's Pool" (by Dr. Seuss) for the thousandth time. I would imagine John Lear to be susceptible to bribes of Cohiba Esplindados and Courvoisier XO if only he would reveal the secrets of the universe.

No SteveR, I am not John Lear. I am a cheap fraud who wishes he could shine John Lear's shoes. If ever I could find him.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 12:24 AM
link   
Very interesting stuff John. Now I shall have to read those 107 pages. From the sound of things sleeper may be more than meet the eye so to speak...

I'm here in Las Vegas myself, and have spent many hours digging for gold... never hit enough to open a mine though.


I think I will hold my questions though until I get through those pages.

But I do have one question... when Robert Bigalow gets that hotel up there in orbit, how will that affect thing? I mean all those pesky tourists with those flash cameras and all?

Thanks



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 12:39 AM
link   
Originally posted by zorgon



But I do have one question... when Robert Bigalow gets that hotel up there in orbit, how will that affect thing? I mean all those pesky tourists with those flash cameras and all?


Will never happen. Poor Bob doesn't have a clue to whats going on.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 12:53 AM
link   
Well he deployed his first module yesterday with a Russian launch. Seems to be working okay.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 02:16 AM
link   
Here's an interesting theory sleeper, suppose we believe that this reality is an illusion and we abuse it because it isn't real anyway and so it doesn't matter what we do to it, lifeforms, minerals, planets, galaxy, etc.

Then we discover to our horror that it is real..........
, What then?

I think it is better to treat this reality as real as it gets because even should it be nothing but a simulation, it builds character when people treat everthing (lifeforms, planet Earth, etc) well and with some respect.

Take responsibilty for your own actions and don't pollute!! I think it is a real problem when people start to treat this reality as a illusion or a matrix and not take any responsiblity. Is that why George Bush Jr and others seem to not care about polluting this planet?



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

Thanks for your input onbekebd59. Your statement "We all know the moon has no atmosphere" is incorrect. Firsoff and Pickering both wrote that the moon had an atmosphere. Based on what I have been able to learn the moon has an atmosphere equvialent to about 15,000 to 18,000 feet here on earth. In others words with a little conditioning (decompressing) you would be able to breath without a space helmut. The moon also has gravity equal to about 64% of that here on earth. That statement is made using the neutral point which is 43, 495 miles and Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. For the formula and math see page 197 and 198 Moongate by William L. Brian II. The moons gravity is what holds the atmosphere. The atmosphere is extremely clean due to the efforts of its inhabitants and the fact that, although there is wind, there a never any sweeping sandstorms that would sweep dust up into the atmosphere. That is why those looking for an effect of an atmosphere on setting stars are disappointed. I have posted in several places a picture taken by the Lick Observatory of the moon in 1947 which clearly shows a huge explosion about 25 to 30 miles westnorthwest of Endymion. If there is no atmosphere then what can be the mechanism that holds the dust and debris in regular form and shape? I know what you are going to ask now. So John, if there is gravity on the moon more than the 1/6th that NASA claims and it is 64% that of earths then how did the lunar lander come down out of its 60 miles orbit around the moon, land and then climb back up to reattain the 60 miles orbit and then dock with only 22,000 pounds of fuel?


Okay, John, I'll be a little more specific. Calculating the mass of the moon is a little tricky, but the best way would probably be to orbit a satellite around the moon and apply Newton's law of universal gravitation -- or, I don't know, putting someone on the moon. And who would be bested suited for this task? Why NASA, of course! Why do you believe this "William L. Brian II" over NASA and the bulk of the scientific community?

About Moongate: I searched for some info on this book, and right away I find that on the back of the book it states that Brian is "not considered an expert in the space sciences." Why would you put your faith in an engineer (and one of a rare breed, I'm sure) rather than in an astronomer or physicist? It really sounds like Brian simply didn't know what the hell he was doing when he made those calculations. What do you think Stephen Hawking would have to say about Brian's pseudoscientific moon facts?

If there were a lush atmosphere on the moon as you describe, would we not see evidence of this on earth? Wouldn't we see debris being heated up in the moon's atmosphere due to friction?

I assume you are also insinuating that the moon landing was faked. How then do you explain the video, photographic, and physical evidence from the moon landing? Are hours of video footage and moon rocks not good enough to you? How about the fact that amateurs on Earth listened in on radio transmissions from the moon during the '69 landing? How about the fact that there was a laser reflector plate placed on the moon during the Apollo 11 mission that can be used to this day by astronomers around the world?

I have a close relative who is an astronaut, and I honestly find it offensive that you suggest NASA only serves to deceive the public. Not only is my relative not a liar, but he is also one of the most honest and intelligent people I know. It's no wonder Buzz Aldrin gave Bart Sibrel a right hook to the face -- some people simply deserve as much for their asinine accusations and shameless slander.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 03:36 AM
link   
Originally posted by Postal76




Okay, John, I'll be a little more specific. Calculating the mass of the moon is a little tricky, but the best way would probably be to orbit a satellite around the moon and apply Newton's law of universal gravitation -- or, I don't know, putting someone on the moon. And who would be bested suited for this task? Why NASA, of course! Why do you believe this "William L. Brian II" over NASA and the bulk of the scientific community?


Thanks Postal76. You don't need to put a satellite in orbit around the moon to determine the mass. The neutral point is established. Its 43, 405. I believe WLB because its simply the truth
.

About Moongate: I searched for some info on this book, and right away I find that on the back of the book it states that Brian is "not considered an expert in the space sciences." Why would you put your faith in an engineer (and one of a rare breed, I'm sure) rather than in an astronomer or physicist? It really sounds like Brian simply didn't know what the hell he was doing when he made those calculations.


You have a good point Postal76. What did you come up with when you worked the equations?


What do you think Stephen Hawking would have to say about Brian's pseudoscientific moon facts?


I know exactly what Steven Hawkings would have to say about Brian's pseudoscientific moon facts: "Sspejjdrkefone thissc nseke nfkwknsl phtttsss. Stidkdnfnlkskjkpwioekn sskskjks f titns sffft."



If there were a lush atmosphere on the moon as you describe, would we not see evidence of this on earth?
\

Yes. See the writings of Firsoff and Pickering for a start.


Wouldn't we see debris being heated up in the moon's atmosphere due to friction?


Yes. See Firsoff and Pickering


I assume you are also insinuating that the moon landing was faked. How then do you explain the video, photographic, and physical evidence from the moon landing? Are hours of video footage and moon rocks not good enough to you? How about the fact that amateurs on Earth listened in on radio transmissions from the moon during the '69 landing? How about the fact that there was a laser reflector plate placed on the moon during the Apollo 11 mission that can be used to this day by astronomers around the world?


The moon landings were certainly not faked. The Apollo astronauts are true American heros who will never received the credit due for what they went through as far as the coverup and their psychological harrassment, their physical beatings and their life long intimidation. Better you should stand up and bow your . and praise the lord that you should never have to undergo this kind of treament. Better that you should stand up and offer a prayer for those Apollo astronauts who had to undergo what they had to undergo to keep the secret. Better that you should research the clues that Armstrong, Bean and Mitchell (and others) gave us to expose the NASA generated disinformation. Instead you sit there with shamless impunity and defend a government agency about which you know absolutely nothing. Yes, Buzz gave Sibrel a right hook in the face but not for the reason you think. He gave it because of the frustration that all Apollo astronauts feel at not being able to tell what is really up there. You are correct, some people deserve as much for their assinine accusations and shameless slander: the people who shamelessly sit there and parrot NASA propaganda as if it was the truth. Go a. Postal76, listen to Neil Armstrong address the gathering at the White House on the 25th Anniversary of Apollo 11's landing? You don't think he is trying to tell us something. What about Alan Bean's 'black patent leather shoes'? You don't think Bean is trying to tell us something? What about Mitchells books 'The Way of The Explorer' page 4 paragraph 3, you don't think he is trying to tell you something? Wake up man. Slap yourself in the face.


I have a close relative who is an astronaut, and I honestly find it offensive that you suggest NASA only serves to deceive the public. Not only is my relative not a liar, but he is also one of the most honest and intelligent people I know. It's no wonder Buzz Aldrin gave Bart Sibrel a right hook to the face -- some people simply deserve as much for their asinine accusations and shameless slander.



I accept your apology.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Expose

Originally posted by johnlear
files.abovetopsecret.com...

This is the tower in the middle of Sinus Medii. It is over 6 miles high. It is made of a glass-like materiai that would make it invisible to telescopes on earth. The only reason you can see the image here is that the sun is in exactly the right position. You can see a tripod supporting the main structure. The structure supported by the tripod is actually a 'cube' although it is difficult to make out here because of all the reflected light. I am supposed to receive a 'first generation' of this photo in the next few weeks and I will post it when I get it.

[edit on 12-7-2006 by johnlear]


Ok, since John is away at the time being i'll make the question again. Maybe Sleeper can answer me, or it has already been answered though I have not found it I aprreciate if someone point it out to me.

As this is the only piece of "real" evidence i've seen so far, and i'm not telling the remaining is bs, i'm just sticking to the "real" evidence.

- How old is the real picture?
- Is it a digital or conventional photograph, or even cut from o videotape?
- Who took it?
- What was the device used to capture the frame? (although that's implied in the second question...)

John said he will be given another photograph with a better quality.

- Why was the original picture resized and given to you in the first place? Why not a copy of the real one?
- Who owns the real picture at the time being? (Maybe it's a different person than who took the picture)
- Did you request the other picture or are you supposed to be given it for some reason?

Thanks.


I'm not sure if this can't or shouldn't be answered. Pretty simple. And once again and for the third time, brief me in please.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Postal76

Originally posted by johnlear

Thanks for your input onbekebd59. Your statement "We all know the moon has no atmosphere" is incorrect. Firsoff and Pickering both wrote that the moon had an atmosphere. Based on what I have been able to learn the moon has an atmosphere equvialent to about 15,000 to 18,000 feet here on earth. In others words with a little conditioning (decompressing) you would be able to breath without a space helmut. The moon also has gravity equal to about 64% of that here on earth. That statement is made using the neutral point which is 43, 495 miles and Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. For the formula and math see page 197 and 198 Moongate by William L. Brian II. The moons gravity is what holds the atmosphere. The atmosphere is extremely clean due to the efforts of its inhabitants and the fact that, although there is wind, there a never any sweeping sandstorms that would sweep dust up into the atmosphere. That is why those looking for an effect of an atmosphere on setting stars are disappointed. I have posted in several places a picture taken by the Lick Observatory of the moon in 1947 which clearly shows a huge explosion about 25 to 30 miles westnorthwest of Endymion. If there is no atmosphere then what can be the mechanism that holds the dust and debris in regular form and shape? I know what you are going to ask now. So John, if there is gravity on the moon more than the 1/6th that NASA claims and it is 64% that of earths then how did the lunar lander come down out of its 60 miles orbit around the moon, land and then climb back up to reattain the 60 miles orbit and then dock with only 22,000 pounds of fuel?


Okay, John, I'll be a little more specific. Calculating the mass of the moon is a little tricky, but the best way would probably be to orbit a satellite around the moon and apply Newton's law of universal gravitation -- or, I don't know, putting someone on the moon. And who would be bested suited for this task? Why NASA, of course! Why do you believe this "William L. Brian II" over NASA and the bulk of the scientific community?

About Moongate: I searched for some info on this book, and right away I find that on the back of the book it states that Brian is "not considered an expert in the space sciences." Why would you put your faith in an engineer (and one of a rare breed, I'm sure) rather than in an astronomer or physicist? It really sounds like Brian simply didn't know what the hell he was doing when he made those calculations. What do you think Stephen Hawking would have to say about Brian's pseudoscientific moon facts?

If there were a lush atmosphere on the moon as you describe, would we not see evidence of this on earth? Wouldn't we see debris being heated up in the moon's atmosphere due to friction?


Exactly where i am getting at.Not only we should see objects entering the moons atmosphere, we should also be able to see the atmosphere.We should see the blue shroud that surrounds the planet like here on earth.But we dont see that, hense why the moon surface is loaded with crater marks all over the place.

These are all proven scientific facts of wich we have seen the proof on our own planet every day.Theres no way that this can be denied. Open up your eyes people!



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 06:01 AM
link   
John, do you known names of astronauts from that secret astronaut corps?



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 06:38 AM
link   
Hey John, good to see you back

Anyway I posted this a couple of pages back and you may have missed it...

www.vgl.org...

Supposedly shots on the Sinus Medii area previously discussed as being the 'Soul Collection' base.

Anyway with what can only be described as super highways, what are peoples opinions of this? specifically Johns and Sleepers if you dont mind answering...

John and Sleeper I have a few questions for you, answer accordingly...

- Does ET have souls? If not, are they artificial? (or at least the ones dealing with our souls). Perhaps they are of such a high spiritual level that their soul is rendered ineffective? If they do have souls, who takes care of theirs?

- Does everyone in the world have to ability to "summon" ET? If so, how? Do they always listen to your calls then pick and choose as to whether to respond or not?

- What is the highest spiritual level a human can reach? By this I mean that as we progress (life after life on different planets) what do we invetibly become? and where do we go?

- Do you feel Nasa's recent staleness since the Apollo missions may be attributed to the fact that the bourgeise within the institution know of the true expanse and advancement of our ET and space program? Therefore why spend billions of dollars on outdated technology (unless for a show and tell occasionally to keep society appeased)

- Sleeper you said Vatican city has it's own soul collector. Do you mean that the architecture itself is a form of soul collection, or the pope actually has some higher, spiritual contact? Furthermore if they exist could you reveal any other soul collectors/hotspots on Earth?

My opinion on the theory is a positive one, I find it highly logical and believable. While I have question marks over some of the intrinsic details, the idea of 'soul collection and reallocation' is a contraversial yet solid interpretation of many of the worlds cultures and religion. It combines the ideology of reincarnation alongside the ideology of being judged by God/ET/Man with white beared sitting in fluffy cloud...

I look forward to your responses...



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by zorgon



But I do have one question... when Robert Bigalow gets that hotel up there in orbit, how will that affect thing? I mean all those pesky tourists with those flash cameras and all?


Will never happen. Poor Bob doesn't have a clue to whats going on.


How about Richard Branston and Virgin's space travel to get the various destinations of Earth. Surely there must be some implications regarding this?

As far as I'm aware it's definetly happening, however how far they go from Earths mass I'm not sure...



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Originally posted by Expose



- How old is the real picture?


over 40 years


- Is it a digital or conventional photograph, or even cut from o videotape?


20 inch by 24 inch negative, conventional photography


- Who took it?


NASA, Lunar Orbiter 3 photo number 84-m


- What was the device used to capture the frame? (although that's implied in the second question...)


The Lunar Orbiter Photographic System. 2 cameras simultaneously placed 2 discrete frame exposures on a common supply of 70mm aerial film. Each camera operated at a fixed aperature of f/5.6 with controllable shutter speed of 0.01, 0.02 or 0.04 second. One of the lenses had a 610mm focal length; the other, an 80mm focal length. Shutter, platen and image-motion compensation were provided for each camera; the film, film advance and shutter operation were common to both. The film was developed onboard by using a method which passed the film into contact with a web that contained a single-solution processing chemical. After the film was dried, it was stored ready to be read out and transmitted to earth.

The 5 Lunar Orbiter spacecraft returned over 1654 high-quality photographs taken from lunar orbit. Each spacecraft was similarly equipped with 2 cameras which operated simultaneously and had the same line of sight but different fields of view and resolutions. The cameras used a common supply of 70mm film and the dual images they recorded are referred to as (M) medium-resolution frames and (H) high resolution frames. All of these photos have been carefully retouched to remove offending material such as buildings, structures, artifacts, flying objects, people, flying people, aliens and whatever else NASA thinks might offend someone.

You can order your very own retouched photo from the National Space Science Data Center, Greeenbelt, Maryland. Order forms are found on the web. (Occasionally, and for some unknown reason, a photo order will come unretouched such as my LO2-H-162 with its building, ramps, vapor tanks etc.


- Why was the original picture resized and given to you in the first place? Why not a copy of the real one?


See above.


- Who owns the real picture at the time being?


Theoretically the American Public who paid for it.


(Maybe it's a different person than who took the picture)


It's not a person, its an administration, a U.S. Government administration..


- Did you request the other picture or are you supposed to be given it for some reason?


I ordered through the National Space Science Data Center, Greenbelt, Maryland where I order all of my other NASA photos..



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Ok, thanks for the reply. Now if I got this straight, NASA took a picture of an alleged Soul Collector and released it to public without a cover up?

Great.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join