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: 67
39
<< 64  65  66    68  69  70 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2007 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
Erased is perhaps the wrong term. Like people in the witness protection program are erased (made to vanish) but they aren't really dead or gone, just renamed.


Thanks Undo,

No different then when a mobster speaks up against his crew, interesting.




posted on May, 15 2007 @ 11:47 AM
link   
John,

I would like your comments on the subject in this thread

www.abovetopsecret.com...
I want to know why the Vatican's military arm, the Jesuits,
are in ownership of our National Technology Transfer Center.
Notice on the site it says they deal with NASA all the time!!
Global positioning satellites? Why are Jesuits trading in global
positioning satellites? Do you feel safer now?!!! Please comment
in the thread I linked as people seem to be afraid of the topic!!



posted on May, 16 2007 @ 08:11 AM
link   
[edit on 16-5-2007 by marker3221]



posted on May, 16 2007 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Originally posted by yfxxx


So, Mr. Lear, according to a formula, which you said was correct, and using a Lagrange point, which you said was correct, we get a moon gravity of 24% of earth's!.

So, even if you do not give up your claim that NASA (and every physicist and astronomer in the last few hundred years) is lying about the true gravity on the moon, you must at least modify your conspiracy theory to claim a moon gravity of 24% of earth's instead of 65%! And this is a blow, because at that gravity, all the claims about a "breathable atmosphere" become even more ridiculous than they already are (if this is at all possible)!



Thanks for the post yfxxx. Boy that must have taken forever to type! I'm sorry to tell you that you have made an error as the moon's gravity is at least 64% that of earth's and the neutral point is 43,495 miles. But not to worry. Many great sceintist's have made errors.

I have considered taking the time to take your figures down the the University of Nevada at Las Vegas physics department and find someone to explain to me where you have erred. But you know what? I think you'd try talk your way out of that too. Know what I mean?

So how about this? Instead of both of us wasting time trying to convince each other of their viewpoint (which is obviously not going to happen), why don't we just agree to disagree?

I'll agree that you are using mainstream accepted values to prove that the moons gravity is 16% or 24% (or whatever your current story is).

And you will agree that I am using the Bullialdus/Newton inverse-square law with a neutral pont of 43,495 miles to propose the moons gravity is 64% that of earths. In addition to the Bullialdus/Newton inverse square law I am using the pictures of the explosion on the moon with the resulting cloud taken by Lick Observatory and the video of the Apollo Astronauts unable to jump more than 18 inches on the moon and also their quick and obvious tiring on any kind of excursion.

In this mannner we can avoid letting our discussion degenerate into an exchange of acrimonious insults which we would both like to avoid.

We both believe passionately in our point of view. Agreeing to disagree would let us move onto more important discussions. For instance the atmosphere on Mars. Surely you must believe as I do that the atmosphere on Mars, unlike the atmosphere on the moon, is almost identical to earth's.



posted on May, 16 2007 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Hi John,

Have you ever heard of Robert Bruce, the Austrailian metaphysist?

He has written several books on how to induce lucid out of body experiences(Astral Dynamics is the most relevant) where when out of body and free from the confines of physical laws you can travel either inter-dimensionally or indeed around our own Earth & into space.

Whitley Strieber interviewed Robert Bruce on Dreamland a year or two ago & during their conversation Whitley happened to mention the Lunar Bases and asked Robert what his opinion would be on such a matter.

Robert promptly replied "Oh I know they're up there - I've seen them!!"

He went onto explain that while out of body he had travelled up to the moon & witnessed craft enter & leave the Lunar bases. The topic then moved on and he did not delve any deeper into what he had seen.

Have you ever explored this subject as a means of investigating such installations or talked to anyone who had OBE'd up there to see for themselves. (of course, there would not be any "proof" just first-hand accounts)

I asked Robert through his website weather he could expand on his sighting to include any of your own opinions on the Lunar atmosphere but he is yet to answer.

It may be worth checking out or talking to Whitley about, Robert's been on Dreamland 3 times I think.

Anyway thought I'd throw that in as it seems you may not need a space-ship or saucer to go up & "see for yourself"

Also I really admire you sticking your head over the parapet so to speak and have opened so many avenues of thought & questioning in my mind. I do not dismiss or entirely consume what you state as fact but do intend to explore further, I thank you for prompting me to think outside of the normal confines of human perception.

Give me a shout back & let me know your thoughts/knowledge on the subject.

Many thanks,

Franco Noonan
Dublin, Ireland.

[edit on 16-5-2007 by marker3221]



posted on May, 16 2007 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by yfxxx


So, Mr. Lear, according to a formula, which you said was correct, and using a Lagrange point, which you said was correct, we get a moon gravity of 24% of earth's!.

So, even if you do not give up your claim that NASA (and every physicist and astronomer in the last few hundred years) is lying about the true gravity on the moon, you must at least modify your conspiracy theory to claim a moon gravity of 24% of earth's instead of 65%! And this is a blow, because at that gravity, all the claims about a "breathable atmosphere" become even more ridiculous than they already are (if this is at all possible)!



Thanks for the post yfxxx. Boy that must have taken forever to type! I'm sorry to tell you that you have made an error as the moon's gravity is at least 64% that of earth's and the neutral point is 43,495 miles. But not to worry. Many great sceintist's have made errors.


Could you please tell me where I made the error? After all, I used a formula (for L1) which you said is correct, and a value for L1 which you said is correct. The rest were only relatively simple calculations. I double-checked the numbers with my calculator and can't find where I did wrong. So, if you say I made an error, I'd appreciate if you gave me a hint where this error could be.


I have considered taking the time to take your figures down the the University of Nevada at Las Vegas physics department and find someone to explain to me where you have erred.

Could you do that? I would really love to see the University's reply on this one!


But you know what? I think you'd try talk your way out of that too. Know what I mean?

Honestly, no. If the University of Nevada at Las Vegas physics department says that I'm talking nonsense, and that your theory about a 65% ge moon gravity is correct, then I would accept this, and you would get my apologies.


So how about this? Instead of both of us wasting time trying to convince each other of their viewpoint (which is obviously not going to happen), why don't we just agree to disagree?


Now who trying to talk his way out?! As I said above: Please tell me where my error is! If you can't find one, please be so honest to say so.


I'll agree that you are using mainstream accepted values to prove that the moons gravity is 16% or 24% (or whatever your current story is).

Using your accepted L1 formula and your value for the L1 distance, I arrived at 24%. The keyword is "your". I'm waiting for you to modify your "conspiracy claim" from 65% ge to 24% ge.


For instance the atmosphere on Mars. Surely you must believe as I do that the atmosphere on Mars, unlike the atmosphere on the moon, is almost identical to earth's.

No, it isn't. But that's not the point, believe what you want about that one.

The point is the moon's gravity, and your trying to wriggle out of a trap you got yourself into. So, I'll say it again:

Using a formula for L1, which you accepted and a value for L1 which you accepted, I arrived at a moon gravity of 24% of earth's. If you don't agree with this result, WHERE IS MY ERROR?

Thank you very much in advance for a non-evasive reply to this question.

Regards
yf


[edit on 16.5.2007 by yfxxx]



posted on May, 16 2007 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Originally posted by yfxxx





WHERE IS MY ERROR?



Yfxxx, your error is in the fact that your result as to the gravity of the moon compared to the gravity of the earth is not at least 64% that of earths. Its simple.

Now, you are not going to trick me into going down to UNLV, finding out where you have made your errror and then coming back, posting it and then having you perform all kinds of contortions as to why UNLV is wrong.

Thats why I proposed the agreement to disagree. Because no matter what I say you are going to have an argument with it. And the only problem with that is that in my opinion I am correct and you are wrong. My opinion is that my videos, photos and mathematics are more valid than your mainstream scientific mathematics. And in my opinion this is not going to be resolved until both of us go to the moon TOGETHER, and you can try and jump 15 feet up in the moons gravity which, in my opinion is at least 64% of the earths gravity. After you are done huffing and puffing and unable to jump more than a foot off of the moons surface I will gracefully accept your apology. However we may have a problem getting to the moon for quite some time as all the current fllights are filled to capacity.

Now I am taking into account of how stubborn you people are, believe me, but, can we agree to disagree?



posted on May, 16 2007 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by yfxxx


WHERE IS MY ERROR?



Yfxxx, your error is in the fact that your result as to the gravity of the moon compared to the gravity of the earth is not at least 64% that of earths. Its simple.


So your argument goes effectively like this:

"yfxxx made an error, because he doesn't agree with John Lear."

And that's it?! Is this your style of "discussion"!?

I made an argument, based on facts which you accepted, and came to a conclusion which differs from your "opinion". And this difference to your opinion is your only argument why I'm in error?!

So, whenever someone makes an argument against you, which you cannot refute, you simply say "You must be wrong, because I'm right"?

:shk:


Now, you are not going to trick me into going down to UNLV, finding out where you have made your errror and then coming back, posting it and then having you perform all kinds of contortions as to why UNLV is wrong.

You didn't read what I said. I clearly stated that I would accept it if UNLV said, that you are correct with your "gm = 0.64 ge" theory.



Thats why I proposed the agreement to disagree. Because no matter what I say you are going to have an argument with it. And the only problem with that is that in my opinion I am correct and you are wrong. My opinion is that my videos, photos and mathematics are more valid than your mainstream scientific mathematics.


The problem is your denial of basic logic. To summarize:
(1) You accepted a certain mathemtical formula (the one for the calculation of L1) and a certain value (the distance of L1 to the moon) as valid
(2) Using these two facts, I made a logical argument, using only relatively simple mathematical calculations to come to a conclusion (gm = 0.24 ge; not the "mainstream" value, but one based on the premise in (1)
(3) This conclusion differs from your opinion.

In a proper discussion, where logic is of any value, you have three options:
(a) Back out from the premise (1), i.e. either reject your value for L1 and/or reject the formula for L1.
(b) Show an error in the logical argument (2)
(c) Change your opinion, and adopt the conclusion from (2)

However, you do none of the above:
- You obviously don't even consider (c).
- You refuse to try (b), most likely because you are not able to. I double-checked the logic and mathematics, and they look "waterproof".
- Nothing you said so far indicates that you are going for option (a). You probably won't reject what you call "L1 distance from the moon" (the ~43,000 miles), so your only way out is rejecting the formula for calculation of L1. But by simply doing so without any hint whatsoever why this widely-accepted formula is wrong, you won't score many points on the credibility scale.


Now I am taking into account of how stubborn you people are, believe me, but, can we agree to disagree?


And you have the guts to call me stubborn!


Regards
yf



posted on May, 16 2007 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Originally posted by yfxxx


And you have the guts to call me stubborn!
egards
yf




One last question and then you can go yfxxx. Assuming we can get a ride, will you go to the moon with me?



posted on May, 16 2007 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Please book me on the trip John. I prefer private quarters, but either an aisle or window seat will do.

We can make it a scientific mission by testing the effects of massive quantities of Courvoisier XO Imperial on human physiology under zero gravity conditions.




[edit on 5/16/2007 by TheAvenger]



posted on May, 16 2007 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger
Please book me on the trip John. I prefer private quarters, but either an aisle or window seat will do.

We can make it a scientific mission by testing the effects of massive quantities of Courvoisier XO Imperial on human physiology under zero gravity conditions.



OK consider yourself booked. One thing however, the testing on the Courvoisier XO in zero "G" will be very short as the trip to the moon only takes about 30 minutes these days and, of course, the gravity on the moon is at least 64% that of earths.



posted on May, 16 2007 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by marker3221
Hi John,
Have you ever heard of Robert Bruce, the Austrailian metaphysist?
[edit on 16-5-2007 by marker3221]


FYI.................a big heads up everybody!!!

Robert Bruce is the schedualed guest on Coast 2 Coast tonight May 16 2007........I have been looking forward to this for a while.



posted on May, 16 2007 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by yfxxx

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by yfxxx


WHERE IS MY ERROR?



Yfxxx, your error is in the fact that your result as to the gravity of the moon compared to the gravity of the earth is not at least 64% that of earths. Its simple.


So your argument goes effectively like this:

"yfxxx made an error, because he doesn't agree with John Lear."

And that's it?! Is this your style of "discussion"!?

I made an argument, based on facts which you accepted, and came to a conclusion which differs from your "opinion". And this difference to your opinion is your only argument why I'm in error?!

So, whenever someone makes an argument against you, which you cannot refute, you simply say "You must be wrong, because I'm right"?

:shk:


Now, you are not going to trick me into going down to UNLV, finding out where you have made your errror and then coming back, posting it and then having you perform all kinds of contortions as to why UNLV is wrong.

You didn't read what I said. I clearly stated that I would accept it if UNLV said, that you are correct with your "gm = 0.64 ge" theory.



Thats why I proposed the agreement to disagree. Because no matter what I say you are going to have an argument with it. And the only problem with that is that in my opinion I am correct and you are wrong. My opinion is that my videos, photos and mathematics are more valid than your mainstream scientific mathematics.


The problem is your denial of basic logic. To summarize:
(1) You accepted a certain mathemtical formula (the one for the calculation of L1) and a certain value (the distance of L1 to the moon) as valid
(2) Using these two facts, I made a logical argument, using only relatively simple mathematical calculations to come to a conclusion (gm = 0.24 ge; not the "mainstream" value, but one based on the premise in (1)
(3) This conclusion differs from your opinion.

In a proper discussion, where logic is of any value, you have three options:
(a) Back out from the premise (1), i.e. either reject your value for L1 and/or reject the formula for L1.
(b) Show an error in the logical argument (2)
(c) Change your opinion, and adopt the conclusion from (2)

However, you do none of the above:
- You obviously don't even consider (c).
- You refuse to try (b), most likely because you are not able to. I double-checked the logic and mathematics, and they look "waterproof".
- Nothing you said so far indicates that you are going for option (a). You probably won't reject what you call "L1 distance from the moon" (the ~43,000 miles), so your only way out is rejecting the formula for calculation of L1. But by simply doing so without any hint whatsoever why this widely-accepted formula is wrong, you won't score many points on the credibility scale.


Now I am taking into account of how stubborn you people are, believe me, but, can we agree to disagree?


And you have the guts to call me stubborn!


Regards
yf



posted on May, 16 2007 @ 10:33 PM
link   
[edit: removed quote of entire previous post]




Really, must you pose such an annoyance not only to Mr.Lear, but to the rest of us that are appreciative of his time and generosity. Have you always tried to control every facet of your dealings with people? Relax, maybe take a hot shower and clam up.




Quoting - Please review this link

[edit on 17-5-2007 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on May, 16 2007 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by hangerateteen


I said most (if not all) of the worthless crap you spew (IMO) is based on claims made by others.


As psuedo-ethical as you claim my behaviour to be I certainly don't stoop to the use the childish language you used at the beginning of your post.

If you want me to continue to respond to your posts I would respectfully suggest that you review the T&C's for ATS. I am going to give you a free pass on your childish language this time but next time you may not be so lucky! Capice?

Sorry if I offended your delicate sensibilities there John and thanks for the free pass. What did I win?

Would you prefer I expressed my opinion with something a little more verbose like “the utterly worthless unadulterated nonsense that emanates from you” instead?



posted on May, 16 2007 @ 11:20 PM
link   
Originally posted by hangerateteen



Sorry if I offended your delicate sensibilities there John and thanks for the free pass. What did I win?

Would you prefer I expressed my opinion with something a little more verbose like “the utterly worthless unadulterated nonsense that emanates from you” instead?



That would be infinitely preferable. You are a gentleman.



posted on May, 17 2007 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by hangerateteen

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by hangerateteen


I said most (if not all) of the worthless crap you spew (IMO) is based on claims made by others.


As psuedo-ethical as you claim my behaviour to be I certainly don't stoop to the use the childish language you used at the beginning of your post.

If you want me to continue to respond to your posts I would respectfully suggest that you review the T&C's for ATS. I am going to give you a free pass on your childish language this time but next time you may not be so lucky! Capice?

Sorry if I offended your delicate sensibilities there John and thanks for the free pass. What did I win?

Would you prefer I expressed my opinion with something a little more verbose like “the utterly worthless unadulterated nonsense that emanates from you” instead?



Are any mods aware of this constant bashing? I'm tired of having to skip post after post of abuse...



posted on May, 17 2007 @ 03:27 AM
link   
Hi John,

Sorry to be pushy but could you give me your views on the question I posied earlier?

In regards to Robert Bruce & Projectiology as a tool to view the moon structures/atmosphere etc. And what (if any) is your experience in this area?

Cheers

M

[edit on 17-5-2007 by marker3221]



posted on May, 17 2007 @ 03:59 AM
link   
Hi John,

Recently heard something about "The Lear Test" and wanted to know (from the source!) what the heck it was?!

Can you describe this test to us here on the forum or in a U2U? Thanks much John.



posted on May, 17 2007 @ 10:21 AM
link   
greatlakes,

I might be able to help you here, I believe that The Lear Test is Johns original UFO disclosure briefing given to Art Bell, referred to as Part I because I believe there was originally going to be another part?, if you Google for it you will find it easily. I am sure John will correct me if I’m wrong!




new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 64  65  66    68  69  70 >>

log in

join