John Lear's Moon Pictures on ATS

reply to post by Zarniwoop


Thank you Zarniwoop on posting the Lunar Orbiter Digitization project website astrogeology.usgs.gov This absolutely verifies what I have known from the past that the Moonbies, humanoid lifeforms, project holograms over specific areas. When projecting holograms they use the holograms created from Moonbie images to confuse or hide what is actually there when you are viewing photos from farther away from the Moon. When you get a closer look from Moon mission photos you actually see the structures, artifacts or anomolies.

I understand that most of the time you do not see these holograms but these Russian photos are the best for showing holograms I have ever seen. These hologram photos are so good that I have serious doubts the Lunar Orbiter photos have been computer altered or airbrushed. Zarniwoop I believe these holograms show what the Moonbies actually look like.

The only alternative is to draw or paint what I see the Moonbies actually look like for you to see what I see. This is so exciting, that I think the Moonbies are actually visually communicating with humans on Earth. What they look like goes along way of telling me who they are and how they dress. They wear crowns, hats, jewlery and headresses also different hair dues. Many on Earth think I am seeing things but these holograms are much too elaborate and shocking for me to think they are make believe. Rik Riley

Thnx, Undo,
. . . which means somebody somewhere (south TX, perhaps) might be holding on to some really clean shots, although interesting that those are the ones which haven't yet seeped through the cracks.

Just one of those could reasonably handle the Disclosure issue . .

Also, John, one more note about the bright blue 'spotlight' I mentioned which flicked on/off in the middle of the night, about the size of a full moon . . picture a round headlight on a car in a slight fog (baby blue instead of normal white light), only remove the beam (keeping just the round light itself) and that's how this event appeared. It did have an extremely artificial quality about it, in hindsight.

Seems to me that it should have beamed brilliantly through the clouds, only it didn't.

I came across this one recently while browsing the usgs astrogeolgy site.

Source:
astrogeology.usgs.gov...

Filename: vhr_5150_h3_raw



This just doesn't look like a natural rock formation to me.



It looks kind of like a pyramid with a light colored ring near the top.



There are a few other interesting areas in the larger pic as well that somewhat resemble ancient ruins...Or rocks. Who knows. The resolution is not good enough to draw conclusions. Cool pic to look around though


[edit on 2-12-2007 by Zarniwoop]

Here's another strange looking object from the same pic

It looks much brighter than other objects (rocks) in the pic. Also appears round'ish with something darker in the center (and produces a good shadow to the right)

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
What i mean is that we have taken the time and effort to image the Martian surface but not the moon.

We have taken time and effort to land on the Moon but not on Mars. We imaged Moon from a distance of like 3 feet.

Your point?

Here's another one from the 5150 pic...



Looks like a hexagon shaped mound in the middle of a small-ish crater. Could be natural, but it doesn't look at all like any other craters in the vicinity.

reply to post by buddhasystem


I guess my point is on top of your head.

Obstinance is one of those traits that turns most off from science. It is insufferable, and the downfall of your field.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
So before i make an observation that is based on admittedly subjective data, you would rather me locate and verify data to support my admittedly subjective observations?

I am a business man. In my world, perception is reality.

Dear BFFT, speaking of business. Would you be willing to make a sizeable investment of your money based on your perception of reality according to outlandish claims of Messrs. Lear and Zorgon? Seriously, this is a litmus paper of sorts. If you can't, then by your own word as a businessman, you dismiss the impossible claims of Messrs. Lear and Zorgon as unworthy, and your stance here is just a pretense.

Obstinance is one of those traits that turns most off from science.

What turns most people off science is a lot of hard intellectual work than not many are willing or capable of doing.

It is insufferable, and the downfall of your field.

I love it when people not too familiar with science are bashing it while making full use of all the marvels that it brought to them. Think about it next time you need to get a CAT scan, Lasik surgery or call you loved ones on your late model cell phone. Downfall of science? No, failure of certain people to appreciate it.


[edit on 5-12-2007 by buddhasystem]

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Would you be willing to make a sizeable investment of your money based on your perception of reality according to outlandish claims of Messrs. Lear and Zorgon?

Hmmm don't recall looking for investors on any of our claims...

Maybe when we are ready to start building the spaceship... maybe we can sell advance tickets...

(and we will have spacesuits on board )

Originally posted by Zarniwoop
It looks kind of like a pyramid with a light colored ring near the top.

Great find Zarni... I will look at it closely tomorrow night I will have free time for the next couple of weeks... And I will get your page updated...

Got anymore of your old avatars floating around? I'm making a collection

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Would you be willing to make a sizeable investment of your money based on your perception of reality according to outlandish claims of Messrs. Lear and Zorgon?

Hmmm don't recall looking for investors on any of our claims...

Color me surprised

Since the space alien artifacts you seem to be seing all over the moon are likely object of an untold value, and virtually priceless, think of the commerical potential... A small piece of an alien bucket excavator will fetch mutliple millions of dollars. And think of all the jewels and golden artifacts you will find in Copernicus! Hell, the lunar smoke stack can be sawed in pieces and sold off to make tens of billions of dollars. And all these other goodies... You should have no problem forming a public company and becoming richer than founders of Google.

The very fact that it's not happening, even in absense of all other arguments, debunks all this nonsense in about the time it takes light to travel 10cm (please do the math).

reply to post by buddhasystem

Dear BFFT, speaking of business. Would you be willing to make a sizeable investment of your money based on your perception of reality according to outlandish claims of Messrs. Lear and Zorgon? Seriously, this is a litmus paper of sorts. If you can't, then by your own word as a businessman, you dismiss the impossible claims of Messrs. Lear and Zorgon as unworthy, and your stance here is just a pretense.

and what happens when i say "yes" to your question? I just so happens that i HAVE done this. Well...at least i tried to when making inquiries based on Zorgon's lead provided to me. It didn't work out for us too well, unfortunately, as the start ups that are doing this work are hot commodities.

Stone Aerospace, run by Bill Stone and located in Austin, TX. He is a very nice guy, and was very intrigued by my inquiry (it seems i was the first non-oil related person to approach him regarding investment opportunity).

After he had been in business for a couple of months, and got some serious steam rolling towards H3 mining, one of the oil companies bought him lock, stock, and barrell. There will be no IPO, unfortunately. The venture capitalists are always locked out of the REALLY good stuff by the big corporations.

So i was beat to the punch by a bigger player than little old me (and Pegasus, i suppose....still not much compared to Shell or Exxon)

So i did some research. Seems Bill Stone isn't the only guy that has plans and is being "supplemented" by petro-corps. There are others.

What turns most people off science is a lot of hard intellectual work than not many are willing or capable of doing.

I think you just illustrated my point. Hubris is a lavely shade for you to wear at this time of year.

I love it when people not too familiar with science are bashing it while making full use of all the marvels that it brought to them. Think about it next time you need to get a CAT scan, Lasik surgery or call you loved ones on your late model cell phone. Downfall of science? No, failure of certain people to appreciate it.

I didn't bash science. I love science. I bashed scientists. Let me clarify:

There seems to be a propensity of people, at least in internet forums, who practice a form of snobbery. They are scientists (or at least make that claim...who knows if they are actually employed gainfully in the fields they lay claim to) that want to make sure they correct everything that they feel is incorrect. Perhaps they are right, perhaps they are not (i have learned that saying "it cannot be done" is almost always wrong). But to then begin actually scoffing and calling other peoples character into question seems to actually cross the line.

This is done in everyday "science" as well. I actually know people who lost their funding or jobs for thinking too far outside the box. Once again, i am a businessman. I believe in doing things "differently". It is a mantra of mine. That is the only way to improve. The box is where you are buried.

I hope i have clarified myself adequately.

Seems Bill Stone isn't the only guy that has plans and is being "supplemented" by petro-corps. There are others.

There's no shortage of private space companies seeking serious funding, I'd recommend checking out the Space Angels Network as one possibility of staying on top of the matter.

Sure hope you didn't sink any money into Kistler Rocketplane.....

Bill Stone is a pretty nice guy, and has done some remarkable research, particularly in underground exploration. I had breakfast with him once, and found him to be a bit (perhaps deservedly) arrogant. But you'll probably never actually succeed in a private space venture without a little self appreciation.

Hobbyspace.com used to have a page devoted to investment opportunities, and the recent Space Investment Summit proceedings are likely available online as well. And the
Space Frontier Foundation has long served as a sort of "hub" for ideas looking for money.

Can't say I've met anyone willing to finance any of the crazier notions I've read about on this board, as if private lunar ventures were not crazy enough.

Originally posted by zorgon

Got anymore of your old avatars floating around? I'm making a collection

Yep. I'm sure most of them are lying around somewhere on one of my drives. I'll email you the collector's edition in the next few days.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
and what happens when i say "yes" to your question? I just so happens that i HAVE done this.

What happens is that I will look carefully at your presentation and will show you in the next paragraph that you were talking to people about a business plan that was not consistent with what Messrs.Lear and Zorgon are harping on here, and which in fact
goes against it.

After he had been in business for a couple of months, and got some serious steam rolling towards H3 mining

I will assume you made a typo and not just confusing H3 and He3, although this is a possibility.

Now, where did this lunar He3 come from? It came from space, my friend BFFT. And why did it happen, my esteemed interlocutor? It happened because Moon has no atmosphere to speak of. And that's exactly we don't mine for He3 right here on Earth and instead are making plans to get it from the Moon.

So there you, the relatively common knowledge of the presence of He3 on the Moon, which you failed to sell to interested parties (they probably googled it up themselves and realized you are selling a bridge) contradicts what JL and Z are saying. I suggest you start a serious discussion with this gents, and stop them from discrediting your business plan.

There will be no IPO, unfortunately.

I'm afraid not, just like there is no air and alien bucket excavators on the Moon.

What turns most people off science is a lot of hard intellectual work than not many are willing or capable of doing.

I think you just illustrated my point. Hubris is a lavely shade for you to wear at this time of year.

Unfortunately, this was not my hubris this time, but a sad and plain statement.

But to then begin actually scoffing and calling other peoples character into question seems to actually cross the line.

Well, if a person (and let me make an un-pc statement here), a man, says something that's he can't back up by reason or fact and which invariably goes against reproducible facts, that creates a certain reaction on many circles and/or social groups. You ain't seen nothing here, in our very polite, pc and heavily moderated forum.

Next time you try an IPO, try to tell them you can build greenhouses on the Moon because the land is arable and there is an atmosphere. Then come back and tell is how it went. Peace.

Buddhasystem,

You mean to tell me, you can look at a picture that clearly shows clouds of dust/smoke/mist/steam floating in the air, and still claim it's not there? Honestly? SERIOUSLY?

reply to post by zorgon
I saw the movie "Astronaut Farmer" they made it look easy.
but seriously, the technological advanced equipment that regular people can acquire today is so much more advanced than what they had in the 60's couldn't someone talented enough build a moon lander and...well I would guess the rocket part would be the easy part considering what the hobby rocket industry has done. I would invest $10,000 from my savings.

I forgot to mention that we could win back our investment:
www.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by undo
Buddhasystem,

You mean to tell me, you can look at a picture that clearly shows clouds of dust/smoke/mist/steam floating in the air, and still claim it's not there? Honestly? SERIOUSLY?

The point is it doesn't "clearly" show anything. If it "clearly" showed anything that picture would be gold dust.

It might show something that might be "dust/smoke/mist/steam" - might I suggest that if it were clear enough to identify, you wouldn't need to give 4 options as to what it was? On the other hand it might be a trick of the light.

LW