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: 47
39
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 04:04 PM
link   
OK. Thanks. The radius of the turn doesn't help me. I need the distance from abeam the Navy Annex where he begins his right turn of 35 degrees and then goes into an immediate left turn of 40 degrees. If I know that approximate distance then I will know the time he travelled that distance. Then I can compute the rate of turn required to make those 2 turns in that amount of time. Just offhand I would say at 450 kts that the bank angle for each turn would have to be 90 degrees at 3 or 4 G's.

If you don't have the time to figure the distance I will do it this evening. Thanks.




posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Horrificus
yf,

I don't mean to incur the wrath of people like you and John, who seem to play on a different intellectual level than I do, but I have a question. Please don't take it as a challenge.

I have been watching the communications between you and Mr. Lear, and you certainly seem know the material. And you also seem to have very passionate convictions concerning the subject.

Could you tell us a little about your background?


I'm a physicist living in Germany. To get my degree, I had to study physics (incl. some mathematics and chemistry) for six years at a German university. Although I do not work in this field, astronomy, cosmology and spaceflight are topics for which I closely follow new developments.

While I don't care too much if someone thinks that there is a "hidden secret base" here and there, I was quite baffled to find out that even the most basic scientific knowledge (like the physics of the Earth-Moon system) is disputed by some people here. I wondered why this was so, and therefore started a little discussion with Mr. Lear, who seems to be one (and possibly the only?) original claimant of the "Moon gravity = 64% of Earth's" idea. The discussion was satisfactory for me in so far as I now do know why Mr.Lear believes that, and why he can't be convinced by scientific evidence and calculations.

Regards
yf



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by yfxxx
I wondered why this was so, and therefore started a little discussion with Mr. Lear, who seems to be one (and possibly the only?) original claimant of the "Moon gravity = 64% of Earth's" idea. The discussion was satisfactory for me in so far as I now do know why Mr.Lear believes that, and why he can't be convinced by scientific evidence and calculations.
Regards yf



Yf, I consider my method of determing the gravity on the moon relative to earths by using the inverse-square law conceived by Bullialdus and proven by Newton to be superior to your method using assumed values, that is the assumed value of the density of the moon.

The reason I use this formula is because we don't need to use a theoretical or assumed mass of the moon or the earth, in other words, we don't have to theorize what the mass of the moon might be from any so-called earthly calculations.

With two larges masses, the earth and the moon, all we have to do is find the neutral point and we have relative gravity: which is what we are looking for. In this case I have shown how the formula works and you agreed to the values. Assuming that earth is a gravity of 1 then the gravity of the moon works out to be .64 of 1.

I am not sure why you think this calculation is invalid but if you continue to do so then I would appreciate a specific complaint as to where Bullialdus and Newton might have gone wrong or where I might have applied it in error.

The formulas that you advanced are fine if you knew what the density of the moon was for a fact. But the fact is you don't know for sure what the density because all you have is theory and assumptions.

The Bullialdus/Newton inverse-square equation is not theory it is fact and has been proven and accepted. Using the inverse-square equation does not rely on theoretical mass, as do your equations, it relys on relative mass: the mass of the moon compared to the mass of the earth where the neutral point has proven by spaceship to be 43,495 miles. This neutral point used in the Newton inverse-square equation proves that the gravity on the moon is .64 percent that of earth.

There are many who know this to be true including those who work on the moon. (They would much rather work in one sixth gravity). But it is a secret. Possible one of the biggest secrets in the history of mankind and it is not likely to become accepted as fact for a good many years to come.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Hi John. Its an honor to talk with you on ATS.



Do you know anything about Lake Volstock underneath the ice on Antarctica & the supposed giant magnetic anomoly.?

Also i think i read a post of your where you mentioned that humans didnt build the pyramids in Egypt by moving giant stones & rocks. If not who did, how & when were they built?



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by jonSUN
Hi John. Its an honor to talk with you on ATS.
Do you know anything about Lake Volstock underneath the ice on Antarctica & the supposed giant magnetic anomoly.?


All I know is what I read on the web. Very interesting.


Also i think i read a post of your where you mentioned that humans didnt build the pyramids in Egypt by moving giant stones & rocks. If not who did, how & when were they built?



Aliens built them a long, long time ago.I don't know how they were built.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Hey John, I found this on anonymous posts, this is what it said:



Posted by anon_96122 on 23-02-07 @ 02:35 PM

DO ANY MODS READ THESE ANON POSTS? I'D LIKE MY QUESTIONS ANSWERED BECAUSE THEY'RE GOOD QUESTIONS, LEFT UNANSWERED COULD LEAD ONE TO DOUBT MR. LEAR'S STORY.

I generally believe Mr. Lear's account that a base exists in Dulce. However there are a few questions that still make the story hard to believe.

1- Mr. Lear says that there are scales that are used to weigh everyone on every level of the base. So if this is the case then how did TC get all the photos and videos out without anyone knowing?

2- Since this is an "alien base" and by Mr. Lear's account they pretty much run things then there is a lot of advanced technology at work there. So since this is what we're lead to believe then why is antiquated video even being used as surveillance inside the base? It makes no sense. A reasonable person would believe that an advanced video system like DVD would be in use or Tivo or something really advanced but not grainy, crappy video.

3- If there was a battle at Dulce between humans and aliens then why are aliens still cooperating? Why is the base still in existence? Why wouldn't the aliens eliminate all the humans and just run amok? What's stopping them?

Fellow posters -- if you think these question are worthy then ask them of Mr. Lear. He's never explained any of these aspects.


Just postin it here for you to see.......



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
Hey John, I found this on anonymous posts, this is what it said:



Posted by anon_96122 on 23-02-07 @ 02:35 PM

DO ANY MODS READ THESE ANON POSTS? I'D LIKE MY QUESTIONS ANSWERED BECAUSE THEY'RE GOOD QUESTIONS, LEFT UNANSWERED COULD LEAD ONE TO DOUBT MR. LEAR'S STORY.

I generally believe Mr. Lear's account that a base exists in Dulce. However there are a few questions that still make the story hard to believe.

1- Mr. Lear says that there are scales that are used to weigh everyone on every level of the base. So if this is the case then how did TC get all the photos and videos out without anyone knowing?

2- Since this is an "alien base" and by Mr. Lear's account they pretty much run things then there is a lot of advanced technology at work there. So since this is what we're lead to believe then why is antiquated video even being used as surveillance inside the base? It makes no sense. A reasonable person would believe that an advanced video system like DVD would be in use or Tivo or something really advanced but not grainy, crappy video.

3- If there was a battle at Dulce between humans and aliens then why are aliens still cooperating? Why is the base still in existence? Why wouldn't the aliens eliminate all the humans and just run amok? What's stopping them?

Fellow posters -- if you think these question are worthy then ask them of Mr. Lear. He's never explained any of these aspects.


Just postin it here for you to see.......


Decent questions.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 08:18 PM
link   
JakCatMtn....

I'm speaking only for myself...but I feel many will back me up on this....

Please change your avatar...while it illustrates the true nature of Ms. Rodham....It gives me nightmares. I'm beggin' ya...please!!!!



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
OK. Thanks. The radius of the turn doesn't help me. I need the distance from abeam the Navy Annex where he begins his right turn of 35 degrees and then goes into an immediate left turn of 40 degrees. If I know that approximate distance then I will know the time he travelled that distance. Then I can compute the rate of turn required to make those 2 turns in that amount of time. Just offhand I would say at 450 kts that the bank angle for each turn would have to be 90 degrees at 3 or 4 G's.

If you don't have the time to figure the distance I will do it this evening. Thanks.


Understand. Let's assume....conservatively.... AA77 is 1000 ft from Navy Annex when right 35 degree turn starts. That would make distance to Pentagon from Navy Annex approx 3500 ft.

[edit on 2/23/2007 by darkbluesky]



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Dear Mr. Lear,

How many 757 hours do you have?

Thanks rita052



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
Hey John, I found this on anonymous posts, this is what it said:



I generally believe Mr. Lear's account that a base exists in Dulce. However there are a few questions that still make the story hard to believe.

1- Mr. Lear says that there are scales that are used to weigh everyone on every level of the base. So if this is the case then how did TC get all the photos and videos out without anyone knowing?


Thanks anon. The leeway is 3 pounds. I imagine that he took a pound or two out over several weeks but I really don't know for sure. That is sheer speculation.


2- Since this is an "alien base" and by Mr. Lear's account they pretty much run things then there is a lot of advanced technology at work there. So since this is what we're lead to believe then why is antiquated video even being used as surveillance inside the base? It makes no sense. A reasonable person would believe that an advanced video system like DVD would be in use or Tivo or something really advanced but not grainy, crappy video.


Nobody that I know has ever seen the video. It is certainly not any of the professed videos of Dulce on the web that I have seen. So I don't know what the quality is. I have never seen the video tape itself so I don't really know whether its a tape or dvd but I suspect its VHS or SVHS. You would be surprised at what antiquated equipment is used on really black top secret projects.


3- If there was a battle at Dulce between humans and aliens then why are aliens still cooperating? Why is the base still in existence? Why wouldn't the aliens eliminate all the humans and just run amok? What's stopping them?


This question has been asked and answered at least a hundred times in the past year. But.. here we go again. For those of you who are incapable of the slightest bit of reading or research and who insist on being spoon fed every single tiny bit of information: It was not a war. It was an accident. A security guy accidentally walked in on a class being given by a gray to 44 U.S. Government scientists. The security guy had on his belt a gun with ammunition which is strictly forbidden any where around or near a gray. It is unknown whether or not the security guy was aware of what he did but in any case the gray had his own weapon and instantly killed the security guard. The scientists went berserk and a number of other security personnel responded. It is unknown who exactly killed who but the 44 scientists were killed along with 22 security personnel. I have no information on whether or not the gray was killed in the melee. I imagine that it was all over in less than 10 minutes. I really don't know for sure. The accident report read that all personnel were killed by 'head wounds'. The report did not elaborate. The incident has been called the "Dulce Wars" for unknown reasons. But in fact all it was was a tragic accident.


Fellow posters -- if you think these question are worthy then ask them of Mr. Lear. He's never explained any of these aspects.


I have covered each and every one of these questions at least one hundred times each in the past year. Thats not counting this time.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Hey John,

What do you think of the likelyhood that the Moon is the "Hollow point" of our Universe?

Thats all I got for now, thanks.

Menguard.


[edit on 23-2-2007 by menguard]



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by menguard

Hey John, What do you think of the likelyhood that the Moon is the "Hollowpoint" of our Universe?
Thats all I got for now, thanks.Menguard.


Thanks menguard. What is the "hollowpoint" of our universe? I don't believe that I ever saw that term before other than on the box of my .45 ACP 200 grs.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 11:32 PM
link   
John:

If you have seen the Pentacon video, how likely would it be that one could pull up a 757 before impact and fly over the Pentagon, as they have alleged?

Regards,

Glenn



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger
John:

If you have seen the Pentacon video, how likely would it be that one could pull up a 757 before impact and fly over the Pentagon, as they have alleged? Regards, Glenn



Risky but possible. He cold have pulled up and landed about 12 miles away at Andrews Air Force Base within 2 or 3 minutes and be safely tucked into a hangar wthin 5 minutes.

After seeing the PentaCon video my belief is strengthened that what people saw may have been a holograph. Note the comment made by one of the interviewees that the plane appeared to 'yaw'. It is unlikely that a Boeing 757 going 450 kts. could visibly 'yaw' in the 3 or 4 seconds between the time it went over the Citgo station until it disappeared into the smoke. Remember that the plane is traveling at 750 feet per second. Any 'yaw' at 450 knots is going to raise the wing a considerable amount. More likely he was looking at a holograph projection that was not perfectly aligned with its visual flight path.

Keep in mind also that the people interviewed in PentaCon saw the plane disappear as the smoke and explosion appeared. That would have been at 9:31. The airplane or missile that ATC tracked did not hit the Pentagon until 9:38...7 minutes later. And also keep in mind that the ATC time of crash was originally 9:43 and has since been backed down to 9:38.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Hey John whats the best peace of evidence you have on Aliens/UFOs ?and whats the best peace of evidence you have ever saw



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Yf, I consider my method of determing the gravity on the moon relative to earths by using the inverse-square law conceived by Bullialdus and proven by Newton to be superior to your method using assumed values, that is the assumed value of the density of the moon.

I do not need to "assume" the density of the Moon. The Moon's mass can be measured to with high-enough precision using only earth-bound observations. I had posted a link to a small web page where this is explained, but you chose to ignore that.


I am not sure why you think this calculation is invalid but if you continue to do so then I would appreciate a specific complaint as to where Bullialdus and Newton might have gone wrong or where I might have applied it in error.


I already explained that, too, but you either didn't pay attention or chose to ignore it as well. Anyway, I'll explain it one last time ...

Newton was perfectly right. But the "simple" calculation which you use to derive the gravitional "neutral point" can only be applied as you do it in an inertial (i.e. non-rotating) frame of reference! However, if you look at the direct line between Earth and Moon (which is the simplest trajectory for a spacecraft), you will see that this line does rotate around the center of the Earth. It rotates with the same angular velocity as the Moon orbits around Earth. Now, in this rotating frame of reference, the centrigual force acts on the spacecraft, too. I.e., a spacecraft travelling along the straight line from the Earth to the Moon will "see" three forces:
1) Earth gravity (Ge)
2) Moon gravity (Gm)
3) The centrifugal force (Fc), because the spacecraft, together with the Earth-Moon line, rotates around the Earth.
Ge pulls the craft towards Earth, while Gm and Fc pull it towards the Moon! And Fc is not negligible at all, because e.g. at a distance of about 240,000 miles, it is equal to Ge - that's why the Moon stays in orbit! The error in your calculations is that you totally omit Fc! Fc "helps" the Moon to pull the spacecraft towards it, and therefore the real "neutral point" is much further away from the Moon compared to the calculated case where only the two gravitational forces are considered.

The actual calculations are not as simple as when you ignore the centrifugal force, but for the direct line between Earth and Moon, the "neutral point" is the Lagrangian Point L1, ~38,000 miles from the Moon's center. For other trajectories, the "neutral point" is still further away (as I also pointed out in a previous post, www.abovetopsecret.com...) and also slightly depends on the speed of the spacecraft (because the absolute value of Fc depends on the magnitude of the spacecraft's tangential velocity component relative to the Earth).

Summary:
Finding the mistake in your "neutral point" calculation was very easy. You simply ignored the centrifugal force, which acts on any spacecraft flying on an Earth-Moon trajectory. Such mistakes can happen, but essentially all students quickly see their error when it's pointed out to them.

Since this mistake is the only basis of your Moon conspiracy theory, I'd be somewhat surprised if you actually backed off from it. Still, since I pointed out the mistake in your calculation, it would at least be interesting, what you think is the mistake in mine. However, simply ignoring my argument and stubbornly insisting "But Newton says so!!" doesn't count
! And don't point out that my explanation with "centrifugal forces" is not entirely correct - it's simplified, because you obviously didn't understand my initial posting quoting "effective gravitational potential" in the rotating Earth-Moon system.

And remember, without the centrifugal force the Moon would not even stay up there. Do you say the Moon doesn't exist
?

Regards
yf


[edit on 24.2.2007 by yfxxx]



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Hey John. My questions for you.
You mentioned the name of James H. Doolittle. Did he ever talk with you about UFO?
As for Apollo I. Was that 4th astronaut from USA?



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Mr. Lear,

First, I have much respect for you and wish I could have flown a handfull of the aircraft you have.

I just watched the pentacon video. I had a problem with Jacks conclusions. I am a pilot with IFR but lost my medical and have a couple of quick questions. How perfect you are here.

1)Is it possible wake turbulence could have knocked down the light poles?
2)Is it possible a combination of wake turbulence and the shock wave from the blast working in tandem caused the poles to fall?
3)Would you agree with my assesment that there is a zero percent chance that a 767 followed the witness flight path turned to hit the light poles and turned back to hit the pentagon.(I doubt I could do that in a cessna)
4)Is there any studies of shock wave behavior in disturbed air, or a wing tip vortex.

Thank you for taking the time to answer these questions. I want to rule out all other possible explanations before speculating any further. I believe the witnesses and I am perplexed as to, what in the hell knocked down the light poles? I can't accept people planting them there because the more people involved in a conspiracy of sorts, the less likely it is to be true.

Rich




Red is wake turbulence/blue is shock wave from blast




[edit on 25-2-2007 by rich1974]



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky

Originally posted by johnlear
OK. Thanks. The radius of the turn doesn't help me. I need the distance from abeam the Navy Annex where he begins his right turn of 35 degrees and then goes into an immediate left turn of 40 degrees. If I know that approximate distance then I will know the time he travelled that distance. Then I can compute the rate of turn required to make those 2 turns in that amount of time. Just offhand I would say at 450 kts that the bank angle for each turn would have to be 90 degrees at 3 or 4 G's.

If you don't have the time to figure the distance I will do it this evening. Thanks.


Understand. Let's assume....conservatively.... AA77 is 1000 ft from Navy Annex when right 35 degree turn starts. That would make distance to Pentagon from Navy Annex approx 3500 ft.


OK, at 750 feet per second (450mph) it would take 4.66 seconds to travel that distance while completing one turn to the right of 35 degrees and one turn to the left of 40 degrees. Assuming you could make the turn to the right of 35 degrees in 1 second then from the right bank to the left bank in 2 seconds (that would be a bank angle change of 180 degrees at a rate of 360 degrees per second) then a 40 degree heading change in 1 more second you would have .66 seconds to level from a 90 degree left bank. The leveling bank from the 40 degree left turn would have to be at a rate of greater than 90 degrees per second or actually about 120 degrees per second. Assuming that both the wings and the tail were still on the airplane when it hit the Pentagon that would have been quite a feat of airmanship for a Arab hijacker on his first flight in the Boeing 757. Heck that would have been quite a feat even if the wings and tail were not still on the airplane.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join