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.

 

Questions for John Lear

page: 45
39
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by BugZy
Do you agree that the gov. will, in the near future, perpetrate another major event here in America (terrorist attack), even more cataclysmic, to heigten it's agenda here. The event I had in mind would facilitate the arrival of the American Union and justify a war with Iran! I am thinking that the gov. will plant a suitcase nuke in a major US city and leave clues that lead to Iran.

I would like to hear your thoughts on this if you have the time.




Originally posted by johnlear
Yes, I believe something like that will happen in March or April. We intend to stay in Iraq with further occupation of the middle east.


I thought that ET wouldn't let us use nukes??




posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by biotic
the bin ladens and the powerful men and women of our country are close, family friends


What do you mean by that?? I have never hear of this before at all. You must know something I don't.



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by i_want_to_believe

What do you mean by that??


Read up on OPERATION CYCLONE.

You might be surpised to learn that Al-Qaeda was actually a creation of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). This world isn't black and white, there are a lot of gray areas!

Tim



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost01

You might be surpised to learn that Al-Qaeda was actually a creation of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). This world isn't black and white, there are a lot of gray areas!

Tim


This doesn't say that Al-Qaeda was a creation of the CIA it says the opposite, is there something else to verify that??


The US asserts all of its funds were used to supply native Afghan rebels, and denies any of its funds were used to supply Osama bin Laden or foreign Arab mujahideen.



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 12:01 PM
link   
John,

I'm curious about your thoughts on NASA's Deep Impact mission, and the role of comets in our solar system. Any alien activity there?

Deep Impact

Two Flashes, And A Bigger Bang Than 'Expected'... ATS Thread



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by i_want_to_believe
This doesn't say that Al-Qaeda was a creation of the CIA it says the opposite, is there something else to verify that??


Quick recap on CIA activities in the middle east through the 90's, below is related to Bosnia - but the Afghanistan activites are just as prevalent and fairly easy to find...the history between CIA and Al-Qaeda groups is long and sordid, I only have 6500 characters so I'll provide short quotes on this:

By J.M. Berger
INTELWIRE.com (Dated May 12, 2006)



From 1993 to 1995, money, arms and expertise flooded from the United States to al Qaeda military networks in Bosnia-Herzegovina -- all under the watchful eye of Gen. Michael V. Hayden -- then chief of U.S. military intelligence in the region and named Monday as President Bush's nominee to take over the CIA.


and...


The official representing Bosnia at the November 1994 meeting (in which Holbrooke gave explicit approval to violations of the embargo) also sat on the board of a Vienna charity funded by Osama bin Laden. That charity – the Third World Relief Agency – directly shipped arms from the Sudan to Bosnian militants and also sent more than $40,000 in cash to the New York terrorist cell responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.


and more...



.... Under cover of darkness, Hercules C-130 aircraft were escorted by fighter jets to Tuzla, where they deposited crates of arms and supplies in violation of a U.N. weapons embargo on the region. (snip..).[2]

After being dropped in Tuzla, the arms were shipped by land or air into Bosnia, destined for the Bosnian Muslim army, which included both official and irregular mujahideen regiments with extensive links to al Qaeda. The shipments included "weapons, ammunition, uniforms, helmets, new anti-tank weapons and Stingers," according to the Dutch intelligence survey.[3]


Connections between Bush and Bin Ladin?...now that's an easy one:



(“I, Salem M. Binladen, do hereby vest unto James Reynolds Bath, 2330 Bellefontaine, Houston, Texas, full and absolute authority to act on my behalf in all matters relating to the business and operation of Binladen-Houston offices in Houston, Texas.” Notarized Trust Agreement, Harris County, Texas, July 8, 1976.




“According to a 1976 trust agreement, drawn shortly after [George H. W.] Bush was appointed director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Saudi Sheik Salem M. Binladen appointed Bath as his business representative in Houston. Binladen, along with his brothers, owns Binladen Brothers Construction, one of the largest construction companies in the Middle East.” Jerry Urban, “Feds Investigate Entrepreneur Allegedly Tied to Saudis,” Houston Chronicle, June 4, 1992.




“Bath, 55, acknowledges a friendship with George W. Bush that stems from their service together in the Texas Air National Guard.” Jonathan Beaty, “A Mysterious Mover of Money and Planes,” Time Magazine, October 28, 1991.

(snip..) It has been widely reported that the two were friends and that Mr. Bath invested in Mr. Bush's first major business venture, Arbusto Energy, in the late 1970's after Mr. Bath began working for Salem bin Laden.” Jim Rutenberg, “A Film to Polarize Along Party Lines,” New York Times, May 17, 2004.




Sometime around 1974… Bath was trying to sell a F-27 turboprop, a sluggish medium-range plane that was not exactly a hot ticket in those days, when he received a phone call that changed his life. The voice no the other end belonged to Salem bin Laden… Bath not only had a buyer for a plane no one else seemed to want, he had also stumbled upon a source of wealth and power that was certain to pique the interest of even the brashest Texas oil baron.” Craig Unger, House of Bush, House of Saud, pp,19-20 (Scribner: New York, 2004).


btw...

1981 Schedule 4 spreadsheet shows $50,000 investment by James Bath in George W. Bush’s Arbusto Exploration, Attachment D



“[E]arly 1980s tax records reviewed by TIME show that Bath invested $50,000 in Bush's energy ventures and remained a stockholder until Bush sold his company to Harken in 1986.” Jonathan Beaty, “A Mysterious Mover of Money and Planes,” Time Magazine, October 28, 1991.




In the mid-1990s, George H.W. Bush joined up with the Carlyle Group. (snip...) The ex-president not only became an investor in Carlyle, but a member of the company's Asia Advisory Board and a rainmaker who drummed up investors. Twelve rich Saudi families, including the Bin Ladens, were among them. In 2002, the Washington Post reported, ‘Saudis close to Prince Sultan, the Saudi defense minister ... were encouraged to put money into Carlyle as a favor to the elder Bush.’ Kevin Phillips, “The Barreling Bushes; Four Generations of the Dynasty Have Chased Profits Through Cozy Ties with Mideast Leaders, Spinning Webs of Conflicts of Interest,” Los Angeles Times, January 11, 2004.


CIA involvement in Afghanistan

From "U.S. ANALYSIS OF THE SOVIET WAR IN AFGHANISTAN: DECLASSIFIED" Edited by John Prados October 9, 2001 :



In the recent past, during the 1980s, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) played a significant role in inserting U.S. influence in Afghanistan by funding military operations designed to frustrate the Soviet invasion of that country.

(snip..)

The fundamentalist leader Osama bin Laden, though getting his start in the CIA-funded war of the 1970s and 80s, did not become a prominent fugitive in Afghanistan until he returned to the country as the Taliban's guest in 1996.


From cesr.org:



Between 1980-85 the CIA funds the
recruitment and training of thousands of
volunteers from three dozen Muslim countries to
fight in Afghanistan. Among these “Afghan
Arabs” is Osama bin Laden, heir to a Saudi
construction fortune
, as well as top officials
from Islamic movements throughout the Middle
East and Asia. Many of these fighters and
groups later join to form the Al Qaeda network
and turn against their former American and
Saudi sponsors.


I could go on and on....but you get the point. We are our own worst enemy.

Cheers,
-Ry

[edit on 20-2-2007 by rdube02]



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by yfxxx

Originally posted by johnlear
You mean you've declared yourself the winner of our debate and I didn't even get to present my argument?


I never declared myself "winner", I just gave up speaking to a wall.


That seems hardly fair. Can't you just let me at least present my side before you win?


Ok, what the heck. I know I shouldn't do this, but anyway ...

( Long explanation snipped ... )

So, that was my argument. Now you!


Since it's been four days since I posted my reply (full post is at
www.abovetopsecret.com... )
after you accused me of just walking away, and you haven't reacted, I assume that have run out of arguments in favour of a "higher-than-everyone-says" lunar surface gravity.

Regards
yf



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by yfxxx
Since it's been four days since I posted my reply (full post is at
www.abovetopsecret.com... )
after you accused me of just walking away, and you haven't reacted, I assume that have run out of arguments in favour of a "higher-than-everyone-says" lunar surface gravity.

Regards
yf



Originally posted by yfxxx
Summary:
1) For a straight-line trajectory, the "neutral point" (as measured by a spacecraft) is at L1, ~38,000 miles from the moon's center. This value is smaller than the "43,495 miles" quote attributed to v. Braun, but not too far off. Even if (and that's purely hypothetical!!) v. Braun referred to L1 with his quote, any "conspiracy theorists" should still claim a lunar surface gravity of "only" ~23% of Earth and not 65%.
2) For realistic trajectories, the border of the lunar "sphere of influence" is further away from the center of the Moon than L1. A detailed analysis will probably show that v. Braun's figure of ~43,500 miles is right in the ballpark.

So, that was my argument. Now you!


Sorry yfxxx, I have been at the mine.

So the neutral point is 43,495 miles from the Moon?

And that’s what Von Braun says?

Eugene Cernan apparently agrees with that.

Eugene Cernan, “Last Man On The Moon” page 310, “It was Saturday, December 9, (1972), we were in the moon’s firm hold, only about 38,000 miles out and drawing closer by the moment.”

So does Reginald Turnill.

Reginald Turnill, The Moonlandings, “…the spacecraft had been gradually slowing down, until its velocity was 2724 mph and its position 38,900 miles from the moon. For the first time, men had reached a point where the pull of Earth’s gravity was less than another body.”

But do they know what they are talking about?

Have they ever heard of the inverse-square law initially proposed by Ismael Bullialdus and put on a firm basis by Isaac Newton?

The inverse-square law (Bullialdus/Newton) is any physical law stating that some physical quantity or strength is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them, specifically, the gravitational attraction between two massive objects, in additional to being directly proportional to the product of their masses, is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

Therefore using the following values:

Re = radius of the Earth = 3,960 miles
Rm = radius of the Moon = 1,080 miles
X = distance from the Earth’s center to the neutral
Point = 200,000 miles
Y = Distance from the Moon’s center to the neutral point = 43,495 miles
Ge = Earth’s surface gravity
Gm = Moons surface gravity

Since the forces of attraction of the Earth and the Moon are equal at the neutral point, the inverse-square law yields: (please consider all 2's as the symbol for 'squared'. I can't figure out how to hypertext in this post.)

Ge (Re2/X2) = Gm(Rm2/Y2)

Gm/Ge = Re2Y2/Rm2X2

= (3,960)2 (43,495)2/(1,080)2 (200,000)2

= .64

Therefore, Gm = .64 Ge

So the gravity on the moon is approximately .64 that of earths gravity or almost two thirds. Now we understand why the Apollo astronauts were making those pitiful 6 inch hops on the moon. It should also be obvious why they tired so quickly.

If the moon’s gravity was in fact, one-sixth that of earth or approximately 16.66% we could work the problem in reverse and come out with a neutral point from the moon of about 24,000 miles. There is no evidence that the neutral point is that close to the moon.

That the gravity on the Moon is one sixth that of earths is one of the biggest con jobs in the history of mankind.


[edit on 20-2-2007 by johnlear]



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 11:14 PM
link   
rdube02,

Thanks for the info, I had no clue what-so-ever. We really are our worst enemies aren't we??? I can't believe this. I kinda knew we were somewhat stupid when I realized that during the Gulf War the weapons Iraq were using were ones that we gave them when they were at war with Iran (and maybe Russia??) Should have figured.

Thanks again.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
But do they know what they are talking about?

Have they ever heard of the inverse-square law initially proposed by Ismael Bullialdus and put on a firm basis by Isaac Newton?


Yes, they do know, what they're talking about. Other than you, who has quite obviously not the slightest clue about orbital mechanics! Furthermore you obviously didn't understand a single word I said when I talked about Lagrangian points and frames of reference in the Earth-Moon system. This is shown by your simple "calculation" with the inverse square law, because I explained in detail why this is a physically meaningless calculation! Just because your understanding of celestial mechanics doesn't go beyond primary school level doesn't mean that others can't do better.


That the gravity on the Moon is one sixth that of earths is one of the biggest con jobs in the history of mankind.


Basing a grand conspiracy theory on one's own total lack of understanding of the underlying principles is just unbelievably ridiculous
. But thanks for making this clear to me.

Mr. Lear, I call you either a liar (prankster or fraud), an incredibly simple-minded person, or - most likely - a highly delusional first-class crackpot!

Regards
yf



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by yfxxx

Mr. Lear, I call you either a liar (prankster or fraud), an incredibly simple-minded person, or - most likely - a highly delusional first-class crackpot!

Regards
yf


Ok here at ATS we treat each other with a lot more respect than you have just shown. If you want to be taken seriously on this site DO NOT attack the poster, if you disagree with them try and prove them wrong, don't carry on like a 3rd grader with name calling.

Now someone a decorated as John, is certainly not simple minded, what does he gain by big noting himself on an internet site when he as done what he has? If John was as delusional as you infer, then I surely he would sayt he has witnessed all these things and be more first hand in his theories.

So YF you keyboard warrior, retouch your face paint and come back with solid proof at what you claim.

TK



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by i_want_to_believe
This doesn't say that Al-Qaeda was a creation of the CIA it says the opposite, is there something else to verify that??


The US asserts all of its funds were used to supply native Afghan rebels, and denies any of its funds were used to supply Osama bin Laden or foreign Arab mujahideen.



May I ask where you found the above quote?


When I went back to the page (assuming I might have made a mistake), I failed to find your quote, however I found this:


Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by Western security agencies. Throughout the 80's, he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.


Al Qaeda

I think the Page on Operation Cyclone and the Page on Al-Qaeda might have been different at one point. Also remember these pages CAN be Edited by outsiders like you and I.


This quote in my mind raises Questions about this whole deal.

Tim



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
That the gravity on the Moon is one sixth that of earths is one of the biggest con jobs in the history of mankind.


Con job??? Wow...

Follow closely.

In the formula for universal gravitation, F(o) is proportional to M(o) times m(p) divided by R(o) squared. F(o) is the force of gravity on the other planet or moon, M(o) is the mass of the other planet or moon, m(p) is the mass of the person and R(o) is the radius of the moon or planet.

F(o) = M(o) x m(p) / R(o)^2

Now...Let's calculate the ratio of gravity on the moon to the gravity of Earth to see if it is, in fact one sixth. No conning here - just pure unadulterated physics and calculus.

F(o)/F(e) = (M(o) x m(p) / R(o)^2) / (M(e) x m(p) / R(e)^2

Now...we know the fixed value of several variables. The mass of the moon is 0.73483 x 10^23kg. Radius of the moon is 1738km. The mass of earth is 59.74x10^23kg and radius is 6372km. Since the mass of the person is the same on the numerator and denominator, they cancel eachother out. So now we have:

F(o)/F(e) = (0.73483x10^23kg / (1738km)^2) / (59.74x10^23kg / (6371km)^2)

Now it's just a simple matter of solving the equation on one side:

F(o)/F(e) = (0.73483x10^23kg)/(59.74x10^23kg) X (6471km)^2/(1738km)^2

F(o)/F(e) = 0.73483kg/59.74kg X 40589641 km squared / 3020644 km squared

after solving the above we get the ratio of the moons gravity to the earth's gravity to be:

F(o)/F(e) = 0.165.

In other words the force of gravity on the moon is one sixth that of the force of gravity on the earth.

John - I'd continue on here to explain why you've messed up your terminology and calculus in your example, but I suppose this is enough of a physics lesson for one day.

-Ry



[edit on 21-2-2007 by rdube02]



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by rdube02
Con job??? Wow...

Follow closely.

In the formula for universal gravitation, F(o) is proportional to M(o) times m(p) divided by R(o) squared. F(o) is the force of gravity on the other planet or moon, M(o) is the mass of the other planet or moon, m(p) is the mass of the person and R(o) is the radius of the moon or planet.

F(o) = M(o) x m(p) / R(o)^2

In other words the force of gravity on the moon is one sixth that of the force of gravity on the earth.

John - I'd continue on here to explain why you've messed up your terminology and calculus in your example, but I suppose this is enough of a physics lesson for one day.

-Ry





Thanks for your comment Ry. As you well know, you are assuming what the mass of the moon is. In my equation I don't have to 'assume' what the mass is because I know the neutral point.

But nice try!



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by rdube02
John - I'd continue on here to explain why you've messed up your terminology and calculus in your example, but I suppose this is enough of a physics lesson for one day.


And it's a waste of time anyway. There whole discussion (I use the term loosely) started around here, and I already explained in detail what's wrong with John's arguments. He didn't even reply to my statements that size and mass of both Earth and Moon, and thus their relative surface gravities, can be measured independently of any spaceflight data.

He keeps coming up with a "neutral point", although he clearly has no grasp whatsoever about simple celestial mechanics, specifically Lagrangian points and effective potentials in a Earth-centered rotating frame of reference.

Regards
yf



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by yfxxx
.....specifically Lagrangian points and effective potentials in a Earth-centered rotating frame of reference.

Regards
yf



Earth centered rotating frame of reference?
Ah yes, thats the one where the sun rotates around the earth. I think that may be a little outdated yfxxx.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by rdube02

Originally posted by johnlear
That the gravity on the Moon is one sixth that of earths is one of the biggest con jobs in the history of mankind.

In the formula for universal gravitation, F(o) is proportional to M(o) times m(p) divided by R(o) squared. F(o) is the force of gravity on the other planet or moon, M(o) is the mass of the other planet or moon, m(p) is the mass of the person and R(o) is the radius of the moon or planet.
[edit on 21-2-2007 by rdube02]


There are alot of variables not into the so called "Universal" physic's you implied. There are very radical consideration's as to the effect's of the solar and universal effect's of the variables to be applied. At a stand still, there still would be alot of discussion on the validity of the 'Einstien Theory' because everything is changing all of the time , include universal interaction of our solar system.


Using the same measurements, it may also be possible to determine whether gravity is changing as the Universe expands.


Source:
www.newscientisttech.com...

There are plenty of other sites one can visit to see there is actually no constant in our solar system, and when it come's to the orbit of the moon to the earth's rotation? It's gravitational expectancie's change with it.

IMHO....



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 11:23 AM
link   
John,

I know you are dealing with some other issues here, but I would really appreciate your opinion on a couple questions I asked a few posts back, namely the ozone as UFO fuel component, and NASA's Deep Impact mission questions.

If they are not something you are interested in discussing, I understand, I am just curious enough about the subjects to give them a second try.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
John, I'm curious about your thoughts on NASA's Deep Impact mission, and the role of comets in our solar system. Any alien activity there?



Sorry Icarus Rising, I don't have any real information on either of these 2 subjects. But you can be sure that there is alien activity everywhere.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Hey, no apology necessary. Thanks for your time.

The ozone hole being only over the South Pole area, and never over the Northern Hemisphere is what got me thinking that, with the possibility of Antarctic UFOs, maybe they were using it as a fuel component.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join