Questions for John Lear, page 102
Pages: <<  99    100    101    102    103    104    105  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 39 times


reply posted on 19-1-2008 @ 07:55 PM by weedwhacker
reply to post by johnlear



Hello Capt Lear,

You referred one of my questions...well, several of them, to 'sleeper'...but I saw one of his posts and it appears he has been banned? Did I see that correctly?

Thanks

*edit for fat fingers typing*

[edit on 19-1-2008 by weedwhacker]


reply posted on 20-1-2008 @ 03:15 PM by buddhasystem
reply to post by OSSkyWatcher



The Moon does spin. If it didn't, you'd in fact be seeing all sides of it. It's period of rotation equals its orbital period. It's called tidal lock, and it's often observed in other moons' cases.


reply posted on 20-1-2008 @ 03:58 PM by johnlear
Originally posted by OSSkyWatcher


so why don't the moons spin on an axis like other planets do?



The moon does spin on its axis, once every 27.3 days or so. The moon was placed in orbit like that because we are not supposed to see the civilization hidden on the other side also called the "far side", (with apologies to Gary Larson).

Current mainstream science would have you believe that the moon locked itself in orbit with a force called "tidal locking' which is fictional fairy tale for the scientifically challenged. Tidal locking was invented a few years ago as a way to explain the orbital lock that the moon is in rather than explain how it really happened.

Some wag, in another thread, actually said the satellites that the U.S. launches depend on tidal locking for orbital orientation. I kid you not!

The gravitational force on the moons near side is 64% that of earths. It might be closer to 1 "g" on the far side. If this is indeed fact, which I believe it to be, it is probably caused by the moons center of gravity being about 59 kilometers farther from earth than its geographical center.

This offset of the gravitational center might be the cause of the moon libration which is the moons 'wobble', theorized by mainstream science to be caused by their fictional 'tidal lock'.

Most people gaze up at the moon and see the cold, apparently lifeless moonscape whereon, we are told by NASA, it is so dry that if we took of our spacesuit we would turn to dust. This is pure, unadulterated, poppycock.

The moon, in fact, has a breathable atmosphere, although equal to about 18,000 feet altitude on earth. Mainstream science fails to acknowledge this based mainly on the argument that there is allegedly no occultation of stars by this atmosphere. In addition to this being false according to V.A. Firsoff (Strange World of the Moon) and others; in point of fact there could be many causes for no occultation including an atmosphere that was very thin but dense, maybe only several thousands of feet thick or less. Another could be an atmosphere which is not polluted with contaminants which facilitate the observation of occultation.

Mainstream science also like to 'trot out' the moons alleged density to counter gravity arguments. They assume the moons density on list of questionable suppositions.

Of course, if NASA were to acknowledge the true gravity and breathable atmosphere people would ask if there couldn't be life up there? And this is a question NASA does not want to answer truthfully.


reply posted on 20-1-2008 @ 06:28 PM by OSSkyWatcher
thank you again John

my friend friday night said the moon looked weird, he said it had "rings" around it, (i called just now to ask him and asked and he said "yeah rings, glowing ones") i had mentioned something to him about the moon being bright and low when i was walking to his house friday and he said that it was weird when he saw it and there was rings around it, i said cool show me so we went outside and the clouds were in the way then (he has a telescope so i was very excited to see, then get the telescope out and have a good look)

this may just be a shot in the dark to ask but because my friend might see the moon differently than me (different eyes, and personally i am bad telling colors apart like brown/green blue/purple so he might have seen something i just didn't that night or ever will) so i thought i'd ask

and to try and be as specific as i can about rings, he means like rings of light glowing around the moon, not like a ring across the planet he can see (like saturns for example)

could this just be natural for the time of year and the amount of light hitting the moon and the position of it relative to where i am? (cold and semi cloudy canadian winter night friday) or could he have seen a form of energy that is a bi product of something happening on or in the moon?

i figured you would be the person to ask (you do talk a lot about the moon), or the people at the thelivingmoon.com but they are here anyways (i think all of them?) i know mikesingh is

i haven't checked out the news lately on the shuttle going up there since they canceled the last mission and and there was the ATS post about ATS being the cause and a lot of info about what was going on with the moon after the canceled mission so i know there is a possibility for moon activity because of the canceled mission

so when he mentioned to me that he saw something with the moon i started to wonder


reply posted on 20-1-2008 @ 08:02 PM by buddhasystem
Originally posted by johnlear
Current mainstream science would have you believe that the moon locked itself in orbit with a force called "tidal locking' which is fictional fairy tale for the scientifically challenged.


Oh, thanks for comic relief. You sound like you are a superhero scientist who is so much ahead of the "mainstream" that it blows our collective mind. News flash: the "scientifically challenged", the phrase you so elegantly coined just now, fits you quite well.

Because if I were to believe you, John, there would be no tides and no energy dissipated in those. And every time I go the beach, I see the real deal, which is the tide, in whatever phase it happens to be. Try to observe it next time you are by the sea.

The gravitational force on the moons near side is 64% that of earths.


It's not. Such tall tales only work with "scientifically challenged" (your own term).

If this is indeed fact, which I believe it to be, it is probably caused by the moons center of gravity being about 59 kilometers farther from earth than its geographical center.


It would appear that your math could also use some brushing up, John.

The moon, in fact, has a breathable atmosphere, although equal to about 18,000 feet altitude on earth. Mainstream science fails to acknowledge this based mainly on the argument that there is allegedly no occultation of stars by this atmosphere.


It's not alleged, John. You have a telescope yourself and if it were there, you would have told us already.


[edit on 20-1-2008 by buddhasystem]



reply posted on 21-1-2008 @ 12:07 AM by OSSkyWatcher
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Originally posted by johnlear
Current mainstream science would have you believe that the moon locked itself in orbit with a force called "tidal locking' which is fictional fairy tale for the scientifically challenged.


Oh, thanks for comic relief. You sound like you are a superhero scientist who is so much ahead of the "mainstream" that it blows our collective mind. News flash: the "scientifically challenged", the phrase you so elegantly coined just now, fits you quite well.

Because if I were to believe you, John, there would be no tides and no energy dissipated in those. And every time I go the beach, I see the real deal, which is the tide, in whatever phase it happens to be. Try to observe it next time you are by the sea.

The gravitational force on the moons near side is 64% that of earths.


It's not. Such tall tales only work with "scientifically challenged" (your own term).

If this is indeed fact, which I believe it to be, it is probably caused by the moons center of gravity being about 59 kilometers farther from earth than its geographical center.


It would appear that your math could also use some brushing up, John.

The moon, in fact, has a breathable atmosphere, although equal to about 18,000 feet altitude on earth. Mainstream science fails to acknowledge this based mainly on the argument that there is allegedly no occultation of stars by this atmosphere.


It's not alleged, John. You have a telescope yourself and if it were there, you would have told us already.


[edit on 20-1-2008 by buddhasystem]



i'm sorry i thought i asked john the question but you seem to just jump right in lol

you've been hounding him for some time now on ATS

what following have you gathered buddah?
Pages: <<  99    100    101    102    103    104    105  >>    ^^TOP^^