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: 7
9
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by hogtie

But I don't think that atmospheric disturbance, man made or otherwise, would ever make methane look like hydrogen. And NRAO is very good about being able to detect and identify interference.



Why don't you think that? We are converting a digital signal to a chemical type, from distances beyond our ability to imagine. With not only 1 atmosphere, but another atmosphere that exists on the target. Not only that, random dust and matter floating between here and the other targets reflecting, absorbing, distorting the signal on the way there, and on the way back. Something tells me there is a major flaw with their technology or they are hiding something.

[edit on 12-7-2006 by LAES YVAN]




posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 09:42 AM
link   
I must say i am a keen admirer of John Lear.A man that could claim anything without backing up his own claims and still get away with it.I gues in a way your lucky not to live long enough to be put face to face with your own claims.It would make for an interesting debate then but i believe u wouldend even accept the evidence even if we shoved it right under your nose.If it turns out you are right u will be a hero if not then you will be branded a lunatic.

On the glass structure pic u posted, we all know the moon has no atmosphere, if it would have then we would see it from here.The sunlight would be reflected by the gasses inside the atmosphere and we would see a blue light around it.This is not the case with the moon so how do u explain that a glass structure is standing there, meteorites or various space debris would demolisch such a structure unless there was an atmosphere like here on earth.Explain yourself please.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Originally posted by Denied



That picture sure is interesting, was a conventional scientific answer given for that picture, say from NASA?


I don't remember hearing one possibly jra can refresh my memory. Maybe its just a trick of 'light and shadow'.


Ok, question relating back to Phil Schneider, he died in mysterious circumstances wouldn't you say, do you think he was knocked off?


He was murdered. I was really distressed because I never got a chance to talk to him. He came to my house and told me the story and I thought he was making it up because he came right after Lazar told about reading the massacre story in a document shown him at S-4. The only difference in the story that Bob read was that in the version he saw the massacre occurred at area 51. But I think that was because Bob's clearance level may not have reached the level where he could be told or read about Section D (Dulce).



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Originally posted by Dock6
.

Re: alleged 'soul collectors' on the moon: I don't believe a word of it. Not one word. I regard it as total BS. BS and ridiculous disinfo. I can't believe anyone would grant it credence. Is this what we've been brought to by cynical, human-hating HUMAN politicians, intelligence agencies, whore media and jack-pots-desperate-for-two-seconds-of-fame? Have we been rendered so lacking in common-sense by the endless barrage of concocted garbage being spewed at us from all corners, that we are prepared to even seriously consider such tenth-rate, 1950's-kids-science-fiction comic scenarios as 'soul collectors on the moon'?
Nope. Ridiculous. It's intelligence-insulting rubbish.
What next --- the soul-collectors are on a moon made of green cheese?
I'm not usually outright dismissive, but Lear's claims are fit only for derision and at best -- laughter. That's my opinion and for me: 'end of subject'.


Dock6, your views are much appreciated on this thread. There are many that would agree with you. I do think, however, that you could have gotten your point over with just a little more diplomacy. I don't really mind this kind of langauge, " but Lear's claims are fit only for derision and at best -- laughter." But others may. Again, thanks for your opinion on what I call TBSMOTM (The Big Soul Machine On The Moon). Do you have an opinion on what the tower might be?



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by jumpspace
Sleeper/John:
So one would assume that Earth was not inhabited by "souls" until they built the collector?


The collector is more like a storage place for certain souls. Souls are taken places in ships or in spirit form directly to their destinations.




All these collectors that exist where souls exist - are they "being-made" (as opposed to man-made)?



They are not manmade



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Hey John, I have a few questions...

1) Do ALL life forms that contain souls on Earth like dogs, cats, monkeys including humans get collected? Or is this a Human only soul collection? Is it possible maybe that our soul's are in training, and we start out simple like a fly, and work our way up to more complex life forms like fish, then dogs, all the way until we reach the human life form?

2) The original poster links to an mp3 of your interview for Coast to Coast, and in the begining it says anti-gravity is solved. Then toward the end you say the anti-gravity technology that includes element 115 and 116 designed by ET's can not be reproduced by humans. Does that mean there is more than one way that anti-gravity can exist?



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
Something tells me there is a major flaw with their technology or they are hiding something.


1) I do believe NRAO is hiding a lot of things.

2) I believe the technology is sound, and that the ability to create your own radio telescope and gather information for yourself reduces the ability for individual results to be tampered with by outside forces.

Of course, what I know about science can fit into a thimble and still leave room for a fat thumb.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Gentlemen,

Can we take a bit of a step back for a moment please? There's lots of talk about a soul collecter but I haven't yet seen anyone explain what the soul is in this context. (OK, I accept that there is the risk it is deep in the 110 page thread from earlier).

Are we talking about a soul in the religious sense or something close to that, or an energy source (for want of a better expression), or something entirely different - In short, are we simply using the word soul as a convenient shortform for something we don't understand? Alternatively does anybody know exectly what the soul in this context is supposed to be?



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by onbekend59
On the glass structure pic u posted, we all know the moon has no atmosphere, if it would have then we would see it from here.The sunlight would be reflected by the gasses inside the atmosphere and we would see a blue light around it.This is not the case with the moon so how do u explain that a glass structure is standing there, meteorites or various space debris would demolisch such a structure unless there was an atmosphere like here on earth.Explain yourself please.


I know this was directed at John so feel free to ignore it if you wish.

You are correct the moon doesn’t have an atmosphere like earth and doesn’t have much of an atmosphere. Humans do need protection while on the moon and they have it.
The glass structure has other purposes, not exclusive to soul storage.

As far as the glass structure sustaining damage from meteors that will not happen, it’s indestructible by human standards, and would easy survive a direct hit by a nuclear strike.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Originally posted by onbekend59



On the glass structure pic u posted, we all know the moon has no atmosphere, if it would have then we would see it from here.The sunlight would be reflected by the gasses inside the atmosphere and we would see a blue light around it.This is not the case with the moon so how do u explain that a glass structure is standing there, meteorites or various space debris would demolisch such a structure unless there was an atmosphere like here on earth.Explain yourself please.


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?



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 10:30 AM
link   
I have to go up to my mine in Gold Butte for a few days. Got to put a new roof on the assay lab and fix some others things MSHA and MSATS have requested before I start milling. I will be back on Friday. I will get to your questions then. If we could keep the ten parters down to 1 or 2 it would be easier to answer.

I would like to thank sleeper for jumping in here and answering stuff that I don't know.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 10:33 AM
link   


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


Hi John, nice to have you back.

Have you still got a copy of that picture for ATS to see?



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test
Gentlemen,

Can we take a bit of a step back for a moment please? There's lots of talk about a soul collecter but I haven't yet seen anyone explain what the soul is in this context. (OK, I accept that there is the risk it is deep in the 110 page thread from earlier).

Are we talking about a soul in the religious sense or something close to that, or an energy source (for want of a better expression), or something entirely different - In short, are we simply using the word soul as a convenient shortform for something we don't understand? Alternatively does anybody know exectly what the soul in this context is supposed to be?




When you die you will remain the same minus your body that is what the soul is. The body dies the souls is eternal---for the most part.

You even feel as if you are in a body but you are pure invisible energy---with certain powers and freedoms depending on how far you have progressed or digressed in your existence.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 10:44 AM
link   
You still have not said what connection you have with John and all this stuff.
If John feels you know more, how is that, please explain.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Access Denied
John's right, if there are any amateur astronomers in the audience, please don't try this at home! If the sun were to hit this tower at just the right angle, and you just happened to be trying to look at it through a sufficiently high-power telescope at that precise moment, there's a chance that a reflection from it could do some serious damage to your retina, or worse, cause permanent blindness!


So, it is something that we can't look at... or else. And it is an atmosphere that radio telescopes can't detect...

This is starting to sound like dogma.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Ok Sleeper, been going through some of your old threads.

Posted by Sleeper.



Once upon a time I was in the United States Army and I not only seen alien space ships UFOs, but I was in one. Inside the ship is real life Alice in Wonderland stuff. Distinguishing what is real or imaginary is impossible. It’s another dimension like the Twilight Zone.

That is only one reason governments don’t talk about extraterrestrials; they don’t know what they are and have zero ability to defend against them.


From your 107 page thread here.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Wanna give us your credentials?

[edit on 12-7-2006 by Denied]



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Sleeper/John:



So one would assume that Earth was not inhabited by "souls" until they built the collector?

The collector is more like a storage place for certain souls. Souls are taken places in ships or in spirit form directly to their destinations.


OK, maybe I didn't ask the question properly. Let me put it another way:

Did humans exist on Earth before the collector was in place?



All these collectors that exist where souls exist - are they "being-made" (as opposed to man-made)?

They are not manmade


OK, they are not man-made.

If man does not make them, who does?

Cheers

JS



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Maybe it slipped my eye on the answer but, who took that picture?



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Originally posted by Denied



Wanna give us your credentials?


This sounds to me like a rude and vulgar challenge to sleeper and whether it is or not I will leave this thread if any on it do not afford sleeper 'extreme' and I mean 'extreme' courtesy and respect. And I mean this. You can insult me all you want but you will not challenge sleeper in this manner. He is my friend and I am fortunate that he jumps in occasionally with his opinions. Everybody got that? Thanks.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by sleeper
When you die you will remain the same minus your body that is what the soul is. The body dies the souls is eternal---for the most part.

You even feel as if you are in a body but you are pure invisible energy---with certain powers and freedoms depending on how far you have progressed or digressed in your existence.


OK, so would it be fair to categorise this theory/assertion effectively as a pseudo religious statement - the existence of the eternal soul "rewarded" or otherwise depending on performance in life?

If others will excuse my patchy knowledge this concept appears not so far from some key elements of Christian/Hindu/Buddhist teaching but repackaged in a slightly more modern wrapping.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join