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.

 

John Lear's Moon Pictures on ATS

page: 237
164
<< 234  235  236    238  239  240 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by LoneWeasel

might I suggest that if it were clear enough to identify, you wouldn't need to give 4 options as to what it was?

LW


They all look basically the same, with the exception of dust and the only way to really differentiate it is by color, since we can't assume how it would appear in a very thin atmosphere (perhaps you know how it would look?)




posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoneWeasel
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, you made a good point, although in honesty a cloud of dust isn't always easy to tell apart form a cloud of smoke even here on Earth.

There is evidence of "transient lunar phenomena" which we don't have much clue about. I personally wouldn't be surprised if it's de-gassing of the lunar soil. We don't know all too much about the geology of the Moon. There are no long-lived clouds or anything like that on the moon, apart from the tenuous fine dust, enough to produce "sunrise rays" (difficult to photograph), which, it is theorized, are suspended by static electricity.

In any case, what we see is not consistent with atmospheric phenomena.



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
[
They all look basically the same, with the exception of dust and the only way to really differentiate it is by color, since we can't assume how it would appear in a very thin atmosphere (perhaps you know how it would look?)


I've no idea, but in any case the burden of proof is not with me. I was responding to the implication in an earlier post that it was incredible that such "clear" evidence could be denied. We are all agreed that there is no clear evidence, and on that I rest my case.

Incidentally, I am not a basher or always an unbeliever in these matters - but I don't like it when a debate is reduced to "you either see it or you don't". I don't find that to be very satisfying, I'd much rather debate the merits of the evidence.

John Lear often suggests that there are those of us who are not ready or not able to see these things - maybe he's right. But again, that idea rather shuts off the debate, which is frustrating to those of us who are forced to rely on silly little things like scientific evidence, rather than some kind of intuition. If it's all down to intuition rather than evidence, it seems to me there's not much point in anyone ever posting anything at all!

LW



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Yes, i made a typo. I type to fast sometimes and don't always catch them (but i try).

I do not see how this goes against what Lear and Zorgon are presenting?

This thread is quite long. I have read it all. It fits quite nicely with many of hte presentations of Zorgon. I am confused. Do you present something that may not be too well researched? You stated:


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.


The only loophole in your statement above is that my attempt at investment would apply more correctly to "Messrs. Lear OR Zorgon", rather than "Messrs. Lear AND Zorgon". Other than that, i stand by what i said.


It happened because Moon has no atmosphere to speak of.


It would seem that this is the dividing point. I have seen page after page of reports from various locations (some from NASA) regarding atmospheric conditions on the moon. Since i cannot go there myself, and i see disparities between much of what is taught and much of what I have observed, i am forced to call both into question.

Now, one thing i can say is that while i can call my own observations into question, my observations have proven to be correct/truthful on a higher percentage of occasions that NASA/Institutional Science. Therefore, the line of doubt is already drawn in the sand.

You are part of the institution, so your input best serves as a benchmark, actually. I would not expect you to observe any other possibilities, since your money is made off of your stance.



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.


I didn't fail to sell anything. My failure was in not having a big enough endowment to attempt to invest. There were other parties with a larger checkbook that were VERY interested in moon mining.



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.


Do you know what IPO means? Did you read my post? Your context is baffling. Can you clarify?



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

It happened because Moon has no atmosphere to speak of.


It would seem that this is the dividing point. I have seen page after page of reports from various locations (some from NASA) regarding atmospheric conditions on the moon.


Do you have a 5-day forecast? What's the chance of precipitation on the Moon tonight? Care to post links?


Now, one thing i can say is that while i can call my own observations into question, my observations have proven to be correct/truthful on a higher percentage of occasions that NASA/Institutional Science.


Sheesh. You are in a wrong business. Since you beat NASA, hands down, you can have a stellar career with the burgeoning private space industry.

Pray tell, what you observed and how, and by what reason you observations proved to be superior to NASA's?




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.


I didn't fail to sell anything. My failure was in not having a big enough endowment to attempt to invest.


Ditto!


Do you know what IPO means?


Sure, I had a stint as a quant for a major investment bank and passed the Series 7 exam.

Now, with all the maneuvering, you still won't be able to reconcile the atmosphere that you postulate with the presense of He3. So ALL of your post is smoke and mirrors. Can't have both He3 and air.



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoneWeasel

Originally posted by undo
[
They all look basically the same, with the exception of dust and the only way to really differentiate it is by color, since we can't assume how it would appear in a very thin atmosphere (perhaps you know how it would look?)


I've no idea, but in any case the burden of proof is not with me.

LW


If you say it isn't something, then the burden of proof is on you to prove it isn't something. Otherwise, i have no reason to accept what you're saying, as it doesn't explain what i'm seeing and opts to instead, ignore it. pretend it doesn't exist. we are above pretending, are we not?



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
If you say it isn't something, then the burden of proof is on you to prove it isn't something.


What???


If some crackpot says that John Lear is an android from the Galaxy on a secret mission to Earth, is it your burden of proof to demonstrate that he's not???

Amazing. Truly Amazing.



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 05:07 PM
link   
BS, He3 traveling at relativistic speed must pass through a given distance of atmosphere before dumping its energy, so this is not conclusive proof that a thin atmosphere of Natrium, not air, does not exist on the Moon.

In fact, if a measurement were made of the depth of He3 in Lunar soil, the thickness of the Lunar atmosphere could be extrapolated, with givens such as the energy level of the solar wind.



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 




Do you have a 5-day forecast? What's the chance of precipitation on the Moon tonight? Care to post links?





Pray tell, what you observed and how, and by what reason you observations proved to be superior to NASA's?


I never said superior. That is your own embellishment. Wow...caught you twice putting words in my mouth on this very page.



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 



proven to be correct/truthful on a higher percentage of occasions


The above quoted text is by anyone's definition, stating "superior". It is very nearly a textbook description. He didn't restate anything....it's what you said.



[edit on 6-12-2007 by MrPenny]



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by MrPenny
 


Well..."proven" is an overstatement.

I mean that my observations lead me to believe that they are incorrect on a very large amount of occasions. To further my observations are there own admissions of error (which they should do more often if they want to gain more public trust)

However the word "superior" was not used, nor was that truly the intent.

...but i am done with this conversation, as it has degraded to a point that it is barely recognizable from where it began. If we continue splitting hairs, i might end up as a bigfatbaldtexan.



[edit on 6-12-2007 by bigfatfurrytexan]



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


So I guess it's safe to say buddhasystem didn't put words in your mouth.....but you may have embellished the actuality?



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem


What???


If some crackpot says that John Lear is an android from the Galaxy on a secret mission to Earth, is it your burden of proof to demonstrate that he's not???



that wasn't the question at hand, though. creating a fake argument, exaggerated no less, to allow you & your esteemed brethren to opt out of certain answers, is not my idea of denying ignorance. if you want to enlighten the unruly hordes, try actually doing it for once, instead of just stomping around and thumbing your nose at people who ask you to hold up your end of the bargain.
for example, how hard would it be, since you know everything already, to just explain how a dust cloud would look in a thin atmosphere? that isn't a wild and wacky question, in fact, it's quite reasonable. methinks thou dost protesteth too much.


[edit on 6-12-2007 by undo]



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matyas
BS, He3 traveling at relativistic speed must pass through a given distance of atmosphere before dumping its energy


No. The He3 would dump its energy (which is not so significant because, if I remember correctly, a major portion of He3 comes from the solar wind hence is soft) in a very thin layer of soil upon impact. Mind you that the charge is 2, and hence the energy loss is 2 squared i.e. 4.


In fact, if a measurement were made of the depth of He3 in Lunar soil, the thickness of the Lunar atmosphere could be extrapolated, with givens such as the energy level of the solar wind.


I would love to do a test beam experiment with a sample of lunar soil. To my knowledge, this hasn't been done. Apart from the dE/dx and the initial distribution of the He3 ions, there is diffusion, de-gassing and all sorts of things that may or may not be simple to model.



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by buddhasystem


What???


If some crackpot says that John Lear is an android from the Galaxy on a secret mission to Earth, is it your burden of proof to demonstrate that he's not???



that wasn't the question at hand, though. creating a fake argument, exaggerated no less, to allow you & your esteemed brethren to opt out of certain answers, is not my idea of denying ignorance


Well, let's wake up and smell the coffee. To you, remote viewing of Venusian cities and parliament buildings -- does it not look like fake and exaggerated "no less"? John describing the crispy freshness of lunar air -- does it not sound like 70 virgins in paradise in the religion of islam? Heck, me and my brethren (which I don't know who they are, although there are a few reasonable folks around here) do not opt of questions. This seems to be mainly John Lear's job, if you read threads more carefully.


if you want to enlighten the unruly hordes, try actually doing it for once, instead of just stomping around and thumbing your nose at people who ask you to hold up your end of the bargain.


Well I am amazed once again. I did post a calculation which, even though approximated, was one of the nails in the coffin of John's 64% gravity Moon. I went through the (minor) trouble of coding up and making plots myself, and not googling up some unproven crap. I tried to answer (and I believe I did) all questions posited before me. So it is beyond me how you can post such libel.


for example, how hard would it be, since you know everything already, to just explain how a dust cloud would look in a thin atmosphere? that isn't a wild and wacky question, in fact, it's quite reasonable.


How thin??? 30% earth or 1%? Hello? I've been for a few days at approx. 35%, not too different from the Earth you know.


methinks thou dost protesteth too much.


Methinks thou dost not sense maketh.



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan


Pray tell, what you observed and how, and by what reason you observations proved to be superior to NASA's?


I never said superior. That is your own embellishment.


You didn't say that? let me refresh your memory, sir.


here's your writing:

Now, one thing i can say is that while i can call my own observations into question, my observations have proven to be correct/truthful on a higher percentage of occasions that NASA/Institutional Science.


It's a nasty impression I get, dear sir. You back off from your own statements. Hardly a behavior becoming of a businessman, or whatever it is that you are doing.

If you say something, mean it or be content with being a clown.




[edit on 6-12-2007 by buddhasystem]



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 10:01 PM
link   


To you, remote viewing of Venusian cities and parliament buildings -- does it not look like fake and exaggerated "no less"?


How do you know I believe in remote viewing? I'm an individual, thank you very much. I have my own opinions, and so does John, and there are subjects (believe it or not!) that we don't agree with each other on. And there are other subjects that we do agree with other on. Regardless, the question is still the same: how does a dust cloud look in a thin atmosphere?



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 01:32 AM
link   
Here is a pic from April 22nd 1959

Source:
www.lpi.usra.edu...



This looks like a perfect circle but does not blend in with the curvature of the moonscape. I'm trying to figure this one out, but I can't... any help?

[edit on 7-12-2007 by Zarniwoop]



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zarniwoop


This looks like a perfect circle but does not blend in with the curvature of the moonscape. I'm trying to figure this one out, but I can't... any help?

[edit on 7-12-2007 by Zarniwoop]


Hi Zarniwoop - it's a curious anomaly but I would suggest it must be in the image itself rather than in the photograph. It's a perfect circle but the surface is being imaged at an angle - which means if that circle were actually on the surface of the moon, it would be a different shape entirely for it to appear as a circle from this perspective - if that makes sense! Probably the photographic equivalent of a watermark, whatever that might be.



Originally posted by Undo


As to the "burden of proof" argument - Undo I think you've missed the point I was making completely. I'm not telling you what the smoke-like feature is, though I have my suspicions that they are nothing irregular. What I was disputing was your assertion that the feature in question was "clearly" X - where X could be seen to be something but may well not be - and the implication that it was ludicrous of anyone to suggest otherwise.

I don't need to prove anything at all. As I said, we can reduce this argument to the point where you refuse to accept my ideas and I refuse to accept yours if you like, I just don't think that's a very rewarding style of debate. And to suggest something is "clear" when it simply isn't is also to reduce the debate to a slightly frustrating level. In my view.

LW



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zarniwoop
Here is a pic from April 22nd 1959

Source:
www.lpi.usra.edu...



This looks like a perfect circle but does not blend in with the curvature of the moonscape. I'm trying to figure this one out, but I can't... any help?

[edit on 7-12-2007 by Zarniwoop]


yes, that is very curious.
it would, IF on the surface, be more elongated and oval shaped with the perspective. however, if floating above the surface between the camera and the surface, that's a horse of a different color .



new topics

top topics



 
164
<< 234  235  236    238  239  240 >>

log in

join