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.

 

Why The Criticism Of John Lear?

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Hmm. Has anyone tried to kill you before? Just curious. It's cool if that's confidential. It just seems like some people might want to get rid of you for knowing certain things.


[edit on 5-10-2006 by UnstoppableForce]




posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Originally posted by UnstoppableForce




Hmm. Has anyone tried to kill you before? Just curious. It's cool if that's confidential. It just seems like some people might want to get rid of you know certain things.



My ex-wife tried once but I think she was just kidding. No one has ever bothered me simply because I have no 'first-hand' information. All of my information can be (and usually is) dismissed as deluded fantasy. That protects me and the guys I got the information from.



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 08:01 PM
link   
I can only hope to learn some of the things that you, and others know. I'm still young, so I suppose I have time. I don't think you're crazy
I believe the world has no boundaries. You have probably seen, and heard things that people can only dream of. It's truly an honor to exchange words with someone such as yourself. Thanks for taking the time to answer me



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Originally posted by Access Denied



By the way that pic was taken at an altitude of 130 km not 45.9 km as Lear claimed so you might want to double check your math.



What picture are you saying was taken at 130 km Access Denied?



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Originally posted by Access Denied



Now if you don’t mind I have a question I’d like to ask you. I’m curious, why do you spend so much of your time and energy ridiculing the subject of Aliens & UFOs?


Ridiculing? Is this what you meant to say?


Just a shot in the dark here but does it have anything to do with your father believing in UFOs? I know this is very personal so please don’t answer if you’re not comfortable with it


We never discussed it. He passed away in 1978 and I didn't get interested in UFO's until 1985 or so.


and forgive me if you’ve already answered this but why are you “estranged” from your father? Did you two have a falling out over this subject or something?


I was extremely critical of his all composite twin engine turbo prop the Lear Fan which he designed in 1977 and I told him that. He told me that I didn't know my ass and gave my share of his fortune to my 4 children (thank god).
Nothing about the airplane made sense.

The engines were mounted inside the aft fuselage. There was no way to service them. Each engine drove a common transmission which drove a aft mounted propeller. This gave it several 'single point' failure locations which made it only certificatable under single engine regulations which meant it had to stall at less than 62 mph and it stalled at 93. It had no range and no payload because my father was under the impression that composite construction was a 40% weight savings over aluminum and in the late 70's and early 80's the savings was less than 14% but worse than that composite material has no strength in shear and aluminum has a great deal of strength in shear.

The airplane was designed for a max takeoff weight of 6000 pounds and an empty weight of 3000. The empty weight of the first airplane weighed in at 5600 pounds which meant you could have 2 pilots and no gas or 400 pounds of gas and no pilots. They arbitrarily raised the max take off weight to 7200 pounds so they could put a pilot and gas in it put the wheels and brakes have a 48 month lead time and they couldn't change the capacity so the brakes weren't effective enough to meet certification.

The fuselage blew up during the original pressurization tests because somebody forgot that composite had no strength in shear and they had to redesign it.

My father had died long before this and a succession of investors, first Oppenheimers put in 30 mil then the British Government put in 125 mil then Salim bin Laden (Osamas half brother) put in 200 million).

The project filed bankkruptcy in 1984 or 85 $400 million in debt. 3 airplanes were made. 2 flew, one was static test. One is at the Seattle Museum of Flight the FAA has one for test and I forget where the other one is.


P.S. I checked your FAA certifications. Very impressive indeed. What's your secret?


I bought them all.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 07:48 AM
link   
Originally posted by Access Denied



Lunar Orbiter 2 Frame 162


You are in error again Access Denied. The altitude LO-II-162 was 45.9 kilometers from: The Moon As Viewed By Lunar Orbiter by L.J. Kosofsky and Farouk El-Baz Scientific and Technical Information Division Office of Technology Utililization National Aeronautics and Space Adminstration 1970 NASA SP-200 LOC 75-601482 Appendix Page 152 Photo Reference Table. Both LO-II-M162 and LO-II-H162 were taken at 45.9 (kilometers) Spacecraft Altitude. The way you can check to see if 45.9 was a typo is to look at another frame just before and just after 162 for instance H85 was taken at 51.4 kilometers of Mare Tranquillitatis and then down the line aways M213 was taken at 50.8 kilometers of Marius Hills and the surrounding plateau in Oceanus Procellarum. As the spacecraft was in elliptical orbit you can further double check and find out what its altitude was on the farside for instance take M34 which shows an oblique view of the north central region of the farside looking northward from an altitude of 1450 kilometers. But no matter what reference we check frame 162 cannot possibly have been taken at 130 kilometers. The reason for the difference in altitude in its elliptical orbit was because the gravity was substantially more than 1/6th earths and if they were going to get down low (49.5 kilometers) over the Apollo landing area to get close up pictures then they were going to have to swing down and use the momentum to get back up. Thats why the Apollo Command Modules orbited at 60 miles (96 kilometers) and not much lower because the moons gravity is about 65% that of earths..


Ridiculing? Is this what you meant to say?
Yes.


I'm not sure I understand the question then. How am I ridiculing the subject of UFO's and Aliens?


So what can you tell us about Bill Jr.’s close encounter?


He's told me no more than has been published. Bill is 78, retired and lives in Florida.


If that’s the case then no offense but based on everything I’ve seen I have to say I agree with him and I think he made a wise decision.


No offense taken and there are many that agree with you.


Really? Many aeronautical engineers would disagree with you. If anything it was way ahead of it’s time.


The use of composite material for aircraft structure was pioneered by Lockheed in the A-12, YF-12A and SR-71 in the late 50's and early 60's. Boeing and Douglas used it for small parts in the 60's. But the fact that it had no strength in shear made it a poor choice for an entire fuselage structure. Better they should have made it out of aluminum and made parts not requiring strength in shear out of composite. I'm sure where you think 'many aeronautical engineers would disagree' with me but I would be delighted to hear you out.


William Lear was a true aviation pioneer.


Yes he was.


I take it you’re aware of the crash test results at NASA Langley?


Yes.




I’m curious, what do you think of Moya Lear’s book?


Mom's book would have been more accurately titled "How Moya Lear Would Like to Remember Her Life and Times". No major publisher would touch it. She then self published the book and hawked it at aviation conventions. I believe there are several thousand still in storage. A great many people who bought and read the book loved it.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Here you go laughing boy.


en.wikipedia.org...
...and high (2 m) resolution images of 36 pre-selected areas.

Two meter resolution from a height of 49 km, forty years ago.



Searchengine and I were talking about the copernicus photo's taken by the lunar orbiter. They are far higher resolution than anything that's been released by clementine or smart-1, and if you're debating that just show me a picture from either source that has higher resolution. Don't bother calculating the pixels on the LOC photo's, you'll only end up with Bob Lazar's scanner settings.


First, the tilt angle (alpha) is 69.33degrees and the heigth of the orbiter was 45.9km.
Lets assume the image is highres. At this resolution, at periselene we have a framelet width of 170m so the framelet has 170 pixels. Our image has a height of around 20 framelets so we should have a resolution of around 3400 pixels. I reconstructed the image and got 5373 pixels in height. So from the start we have a magnified image. From the framelet width at periselene, the heigth of the orbiter at periselene and the number of framelets in the picture we can determine the field of view of the camera. But, lets make some calculations. (thanks AD for the this link with lunar orbiter data)
Here are the basic concepts behind the math.



So, if this was a highres picture, we get a span of the image on the ground around only 12km (where the crater is located). But Copernicus crater has around 100km diameter. The conclusion...either the image is not highres, or this is not Copernicus crater!!!.

Now, assuming that this image is of medium resolution, that is around 1300 meters per framelet at periselene and a ground resolution of 33 meters at periselene, redoing the math, we now get an image span of 165km (this is where the crater is located). So...if this is Copernicus crater...then yes...the image is a medres one!!

So, knowing this, we get the ground resolution:
in the foreground: horizontal 7m / pixel - vertical 14m / pixel
in the middle: horizontal 13m / pixel - vertical 49m / pixel
in the background: 26m / pixel - vertical 240m / pixel

Anyway, these results are for an image resolution of 6277 by 5373 (this is what I got reconstructing the picture). But...the third and the forth pictures are not the same size as the first two. I had to enlarge them by a factor of 134%. So, the resolution in the froground is not at all 7m per pixel. Even worse, if we assume that we have the same number of pixels per framelet in both highres and medres pictures (same film type) then the original image should have, like I said, around 3400 pixels height, not 5373!! So basicly, every 3 joint pixels bear the same information as 2 real pixels!!!!! So...the image should be reduced in size by a factor of 1.58. And the ground resolutions will then be 1.58 times bigger. (11m by 22m; 20.5m by 77.5m and 41m by 379m / real pixel)! In fact, this was one of my first observation that I've made when I saw the full picture...it's a little blurry.

Further more, the first 2 pictures use only around 225 gray tones from 256 available. OK, you might find other pictures of the moon with even fewer colors. Yes, but if you look at the histogram you'll see the difference. These Copernicus pictures use only around 225 tones spread across the whole interval, while for the other pictures, the histogram is more compact. (At this point, the first lick picture is even worse...with only 64 colors...that is 6 bits / pixel instead of 8...).

The histogram for the copernicus picture


The histogram for a clementine picture (thanks AD for the link - it is a true 20m / pixel picture)


So....by no means these are good quality pictures! (And I mean the originals, JL's photos).


Originally posted by zorgon
So just what exactly are YOU claiming by making the judgement call "for a bunch of ATSers."?

Well...from my online english dictionary I know that bunch is a connected group, a group of people...so...I don't get your question.
Were you talking about the Rorschach inkblot test for a bunch of ATSers?
If so...then look here







Do these pictures contain anomalies? Be aware that I got these ones by randomly cropping the copernicus crater gifs.
Do they look different than those found in the john lears pictures thread?
Lets see





Not quite....



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
You are in error again Access Denied. The altitude LO-II-162 was 45.9 kilometers from [...] But no matter what reference we check frame 162 cannot possibly have been taken at 130 kilometers.


Oh...but it was. The center of the frame, due to the tilt of the camera (69.33 degrees) is located 136.7km away from the orbiter.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Originally posted by Apass



Apass, thank you for your clarification of Access Denied's erroneous post:


First, the tilt angle (alpha) is 69.33degrees and the heigth of the orbiter was 45.9km


and then your further clarification:


The center of the frame, due to the tilt of the camera (69.33 degrees) is located 136.7km away from the orbiter.


Access Denieds post:


: By the way that pic was taken at an altitude of 130 km not 45.9 km as Lear claimed so you might want to double check your math.


It helped me make it clear that the post Access Denied made was clearly obfuscatory in his attempt to use 136.7 kilometers as an 'altitude' when he means 136.7 is Copernicus' distance from the lens. 45.9 kilometers was Lunar Orbiters altitude above the moon as I claimed and nobody has to "check their math".

By the way you graphs were very nice but you don't need to make them as big as a garage door to get your point over.

Thanks again for your help.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 12:28 PM
link   
I don't know if this is the approiate place to ask this but I'm asking anyhows.

I was surprised that out of nowhere they showed pictures from the Rover today. They said the Rover took the pictures at Victoria Crator.

Will any of you be checking these out? The pictures looked clear maybe you can see something I can't.

I just thought it was interesting since we haven't seen much on the tube about Mars and the Rovers.

Also they mentioned that the shuttle had a pinhole in it's door?

I must say I do have a hard time seeing things in pictures you post but I like the inkblot one colored with the dog and tree.

[edit on 6-10-2006 by observe50]



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 08:06 PM
link   
I'm headed to the mine until late Monday night. Please save your insults, ridicule and scorn until then. Thanks



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 11:00 PM
link   
Apass


Please explain what is inside the boxed area please








posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
By the way you graphs were very nice but you don't need to make them as big as a garage door to get your point over.

Thanks again for your help.


Well...about that...
I quite don't realize how big my graphs are until I post them...I have 1280 by 1024 resolution on my monitor and they don't look that big so it's easy to forget their size. I'll keep that in mind


Edited to add:
Zorgon, I don't know what is inside that area. Just now I can see only some dark and bright patches (highly zoomed in) that can be anything. What is the context of that image?

[edit on 7/10/06 by Apass]



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Apass

..I have 1280 by 1024 resolution on my monitor and they don't look that big so it's easy to forget their size.

Zorgon, I don't know what is inside that area. Just now I can see only some dark and bright patches (highly zoomed in) that can be anything. What is the context of that image?


Ah I see the problem... with your screen resolution so high these anaomalies would be tiny indeed. These zoomed in small images are difficult enough to see at 800x600, but displaying them on your resolution just reduced them back down again. Zooming in on your screen would double the distortion...

The area I am refering to is in the white box.. it is clearly, at least at my resolution a curved symetrical object with diamond shaped areas.




I have a test to run in the other thread... don't want to double post this one...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join