Questions for John Lear

page: 102
39
<< 99  100  101    103  104  105 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 10:59 PM
link   
Originally posted by weedwhacker




I am curious about your theory of stars, and their nature. If our Sun, and the other 400 billion, or so, stars in our Galaxy aren't made of very hot Hydrogen, and trace gases, burning in a nuclear fusion to create the heavier elements of the periodic table, then just how DID the Sun and stars come to be? What is the mechanism that forms stars, and planets...and Pulsars, and Neutron stars...and why are there HUGE dust clouds in our Galaxy that appear to be stellar 'nurseries'.




Thats a question for sleeper weedwhacker. He'll be happy to answer it.




posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

The Lockheed F-104 Starfighter had many crashes. It is credited with almost single handedly eliminating the entire German Air Force.




Im a bit concerned about this comment.
Its a fact tha the F104 never entered servce untill the Mid 50's so how do you account for this enormous whoopsie?

www.starfighters.nl...
en.wikipedia.org...

Or should we just accept it as another of your 'flights of fancy' ?



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Mr Lear
If you think that we humans are put in to new lives to better ourselfs and have no knowledge of other past lives, I think you used the word "cheating" in that context, how come then that there are many people who "remember" past lives and can take you to places and know people who have once lived there?
Thanks in advance, for a possible answer.

[edit on 18/1/2008 by Lyrian]



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Hi John, just curious,.... did you get a chance to go to the caucus today in Las vegas???

I'm not interested in your party affiliation, I just figured it would be nice to hear a first hand account of the atmosphere at the caucuses since you won't hear the truth through the msm.

I am hearing through unverified sources that it was total chaos.

Thanks for your time.

Later,...... Ausable_Bill



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Originally posted by realyweely





Im a bit concerned about this comment.
Its a fact tha the F104 never entered servce untill the Mid 50's so how do you account for this enormous whoopsie?

Or should we just accept it as another of your 'flights of fancy' ?



Sorry realyweely, another one of my inside morbid jokes.


Germany bought 916 F-104's most of them G models in the early 1960's.
I think the last one was retired in 1990.

They crashed 292 of them killing 115 pilots (some say the actual figure is closer to 300 pilots).

The crashes were for many reasons most of them pilot error related to its extremely high performance and Germany's poor weather.

The figure of 292 F-104's represented over 30% of the fleet, hence the joke: The F-104 single handedly nearly eliminated the German Luftwaffe.

www.flightlevel350.com...



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 07:55 PM
link   
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]



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Originally posted by weedwhacker




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



No, sleeper has not been banned. He is taking some well deserved time off though. Save you questions for if he comes back.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 09:15 PM
link   
John,

Are you mad at me? I sent you a U2U and you haven't responded...



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Hello John, I saw in another thread that you claim there are around 600 millions aliens on Mars. If this is the case, where are they? Underground?



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Originally posted by TheoOne




John,

Are you mad at me? I sent you a U2U and you haven't responded...


I not only u2'd you....I got Learology back on. Seen it?



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 02:58 PM
link   
hi john thanks for the answering me last time

i have something else to ask you

why don't the moons spin around on an axis like our planet does and we are told the other planets do

earth rotates on it's axis as it spins around the sun, but i always see the same side of the moon

it doesn't make any sense when the earth is smaller than the sun, and the moon smaller than earth so the moon should spin on an axis no?

i understand that gravity holds things, and it could hold it in place, but the sun doesn't keep us still we spin on an axis as we rotate, so i assume that because the moon is smaller than earth it would have a somewhat same relationship as we have to the sun, it would just be different (slower, faster?) because of the size differences and ratios between sun/earth earth/moon

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




[edit on 20-1-2008 by OSSkyWatcher]



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 03:15 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 03:58 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 06:28 PM
link   
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



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 08:02 PM
link   

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]



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 12:07 AM
link   

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?



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by OSSkyWatcher
you've been hounding him for some time now on ATS


I don't care much for John and less for "hounding" anybody. I have to admit that it vexes me when somebody posts things that demonstrably false, on a forum I happen to like very much.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Originally posted by johnlear


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.


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


You must have missed the part where John conveniently left in an excuse as to why it might not be noticed by telescopes. I believed he blamed global warming or something, lol. Someone get Al Gore on the case


But let's be real here, the type of distortion he says would be unnoticeable by the thousands of worldwide astronomers is indeed false. Trust me, it would have been documented by now if it were there.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by OSSkyWatcher
hi john thanks for the answering me last time

i have something else to ask you

why don't the moons spin around on an axis like our planet does and we are told the other planets do

earth rotates on it's axis as it spins around the sun, but i always see the same side of the moon

it doesn't make any sense when the earth is smaller than the sun, and the moon smaller than earth so the moon should spin on an axis no?


Using your observations from the quoted material, you should still believe the Earth is flat, no?

Skywatcher, I believe you are very inquisitive, and open to common sense, reason and logic if pointed in the right direction. I must admit, your lack of understanding concerning the basic aspects of our solar system I find troubling, however I find the fact that your looking for those answers on a conspiracy site even more troubling. Your making yourself easy prey. I would encourage you to become informed through more standard means of facts and information before coming here and having someone like Jon Lear "educate" you.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Where on Mars are the 600 million Aliens living?





new topics
top topics
 
39
<< 99  100  101    103  104  105 >>

log in

join