Originally posted by Lightman9202
Ghost01-

You pulled a total 180 regarding Phil Schneider. What have you discovered that leads you to beleive his claims? If you were playing devil's advocate, that is fine, but please have respect towards the dead.
[edit on 11-2-2007 by Lightman9202]

I don't believe all of his claims! What I meant when I said "I reevaluated my position" is I believe that the facts show he was involved with strange activities and that his death raises very serious questions.

-For example, I'm still not ready to believe Dulce is or was ever real

However, on the same note, why the bizarre manner of death?

In my oppinion, neither answer really makes sense to me. Let's look and I'll show you what I mean:

Suicide: If we asume it was a suicide (as claimed), why Strangle himself with a tube? Think about all of the Suicides you've ever heard of in the news or whereever. Have you ever heard of suicide by self-strangulation? Hanging, yes, but strangulation?

Murder Staged as Suicide: If (on the other hand) we assume it was a murder as John Lear and others suggest, you get the same question, Why? Why such a weird way? Most murders that are staged as suicides use Common methods like close range gunshots, drug OD's or CO poisinging in a car. Who would pick a method noone uses?

Second, I was origionally convinced that there was nothing to any of the claims at all!

For example, I said he wasn't even missing fingers. John Lear has proven that to be incorrect. He posted some photos where you can really see the missing fingers. How did he loose them?- I don't know

I threw out the whole idea of an "Underground Island", until someone said: "It's not an island in the litteral sense."

I also did some digging into geology and read up on semi-underwater caves. Some of these caves have pockets of air in them where you can find SMALL peices of land, surrounded by water- an Island (we're only talking a couple yards across at best)

If you read my last post, you will see my comment about a Disinformation Conspiracy:

When I first started this thread, I got Hammered for suggesting that Phil Schnider wasn't telling the truth, and now he's the center of a massive Conspiracy Theory concerning the spread of disinformation.

(I hope self-quotes are allowed)

Is Phil Schnider taking us for a ride? Most likely!

Is Phil a pure wackjob that is out for publicity? I have my doubts.

This is starting to look like a Government Disinformation Scam gone horrorably wrong!

I meant no disrespect to anyone, but I honestly have questions about my Origional assessment of Phil Schnider and his claims. I don't think they are all true, but I know that I Can't prove any of them false, based on what I've learned from this thread.

Tim

I agree with you, Schneider is a joker and it pushes the limits of my imagination to believe his stories. Underground wars with aliens with spoons as wepaons, its total madness. I do know one thing, if the aliens are buzzing around underground building cities with their reptiallian friends I have no problem leaving them down there to do whatever they are up to. The greys are just the modern day devil myth, have you realised these 'greys' always seem to come at night? I wonder why that could be?

I have another theory. He has specifically coded his speeches to contain a secret message. So if you take every letter then arrange them in a particular order you will realise the new grey world order is upon us and we are all to be microchipped then die form excessive probing at night.

Oh and of course guys, if he is found to be a fraud then he is evidently some form of clandestine disinfomation agent working for the greys or actually a grey in disguise.

[edit on 13-2-2007 by superpaul55]

Originally posted by SkepticGreek74
If anyone wants to believe he was out for attention or a disinformation agent...then go ahead. If you also wanna believe he staged his death to make it look like a murder...then go ahead. I can't stop you! But I will ask these people have they really read anything this person had to say?

This article I found should help answer most of the questions pertaining to his "credibility" and is probably his last lecture before his brutal murdering.

Thank you for your post SkepticGreek74. I believe Phil may have been out just for attention. Yes, I believe that he probably staged his death. Yes, he had a lot of information about Dulce and other places and events. But he could have gotten all of those statements from any number of sources. There is no single statement that Phil Schneider ever came up with that was his own, from his own information.

And in my humble opinion Phil Shneider was never at Dulce.

The following statement, that Phil Schneider made is absolutely incorrect. Anybody who knows the true story of what happened knows that this statement is incorrect and they know why it is incorrect.

Sixty-six secret service agents, FBI, Black Berets and the like, died in that firefight. I was there.

thread over a dead man who can't even defend himself...it's just plain disrespectful!

I disagree. I don't think its disrespectful to debate whether or not Phil Schneider was telling the truth. I don't belive he was and for the specific reason of his statement of who was killed at Dulce. His statement is in error as to who was there and who was killed.

Bob Lazar has been debunked. I'd really like to see one of those topics.

Originally posted by yfxxx
With m, radius r=d/2 and the gravitational constant G, the gravitational acceleration g on the surface calculates as g = G*m/r² .
…
The mass of the Moon can be easily calculated by observing its motion around the earth

Yfxxxx, I’m curious to know how we determined the mass of the moon? (7.349e+22 kg) and how this can be determined by observation, thanks.

Originally posted by yfxxx
The mass of the Moon can be easily calculated by observing its motion around the earth.The lunar mass value you get from terrestrial observations is easily within a few percent of the exact value. This is more than enough to dismiss any claims of, say, a lunar surface gravity of 65% of Earth's.

Thanks you yfxxx. Then by application of the inverse-square law (Bullialdus/Newton) which states that the gravitational attraction between two massive objects, in addition to being directly proportional to the product of their masses, is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them, would you agree that the neutral point between the earth and the moon, that is the point at which an object would experience the same pull of gravity from both the earth and the moon, (and thereby be at the 'neutral point), to be approximately 25,000 miles?

And would you agree to accept the following numbers for our computations?

Radius of the earth=3,960 miles
radiius of the moon=1,080
distance between the earth and the moon= 240,000 miles

Thanks.

Hi John Lear,

I believe 66 deaths may or may not be correct. In fact, I remember reading 44 deaths somewhere else but I don't think we should discredit him solely on this issue. He may even be lying about being there when the riot took place but again this doesn't necessarily mean he is lying about everything!

Here is where I disagree with you. If he he was a geological and structural engineer working under contract for the government wouldn't it seem logical that he would indeed have first hand knowledge of many underground bases and tunnels? I think we should at least believe that much! He knows the exact number of bases built (read the link I provided for this information) and has pretty good knowledge of the underground tunnel system. He also knows a lot of information about the black budget!

If he did lie I don't know why he would, but perhaps he was so fed up with what he saw happening that he got over anxious and started exaggerating what he saw or was told to further add drama. I can't know so this is only my speculation!

Anyway, I think his motives were good.

Originally posted by SkepticGreek74
Hi John Lear,

I believe 66 deaths may or may not be correct. In fact, I remember reading 44 deaths somewhere else but I don't think we should discredit him solely on this issue. He may even be lying about being there when the riot took place but again this doesn't necessarily mean he is lying about everything!

44 was the number of scientists killed. The other 22 where security. My point being that anybody who knew the real story knew that there were 44 scientists killed and what circumstances they were killed under. In other words what started the whole incident. I never heard Phil talk about that.

Here is where I disagree with you. If he he was a geological and structural engineer working under contract for the government wouldn't it seem logical that he would indeed have first hand knowledge of many underground bases and tunnels? I think we should at least believe that much! He knows the exact number of bases built (read the link I provided for this information) and has pretty good knowledge of the underground tunnel system. He also knows a lot of information about the black budget!

The fact is, any and all of that information was available from other sources and Phil was not the first to publish or talk about it.

If he did lie I don't know why he would, but perhaps he was so fed up with what he saw happening that he got over anxious and started exaggerating what he saw or was told to further add drama. I can't know so this is only my speculation!

Thats possible. Was told to add drama by whom? Was he told to kill himself to add to the drama?

Anyway, I think his motives were good.

I'm sure. Thats why the road to hell is so well paved. Thanks.

John,

So what do you think his real motives were for getting this information out to the public? Do you think he was only looking for self attention or was he trying to mislead the public? Sorry, but I am having a hard time trying to follow your reasoning.

I remember reading that he had gotten cancer after being shot by aliens during an excavation. Could it be he got pissed off at the government and was looking for revenge? He knew he only had a few months to live so he figured he go out with a "bang"? Even if this the case I think he helped in getting the truth out. So what if he doesn't know all the details? What difference does it make? Help me understand! I think we are both on the same side and I greatly respect your research work even if we disagree on certain issues!

Regards

Originally posted by SkepticGreek74
John,

So what do you think his real motives were for getting this information out to the public? Do you think he was only looking for self attention or was he trying to mislead the public? Sorry, but I am having a hard time trying to follow your reasoning.

I really don't know what his motives were. All I am saying is Phil Schneider was never at Dulce. Period. Thats all.

I remember reading that he had gotten cancer after being shot by aliens during an excavation.

If he got shot by aliens during an excavation then the excavation was not at Dulce because Phil was never at Dulce.

Could it be he got pissed off at the government and was looking for revenge?

And killed himself? What kind of revenge is that?

He knew he only had a few months to live so he figured he go out with a "bang"?

I don't believe there was a weapon involved in his suicide.

Even if this the case I think he helped in getting the truth out. So what if he doesn't know all the details? What difference does it make? Help me understand! I think we are both on the same side and I greatly respect your research work even if we disagree on certain issues!

See above. Thanks.

John,

I really don't know what his motives were. All I am saying is Phil Schneider was never at Dulce. Period. Thats all.

Ok. Perhaps you are right but here is what Phil Schneider says about Dulce fire fight:

The Fire Fight At Dulce Base:

"Back in 1954, under the Eisenhower administration, the federal government decided to circumvent the Constitution of the United States and form a treaty with alien entities. It was called the 1954 Greada Treaty, which basically made the agreement that the aliens involved could take a few cows and test their implanting techniques on a few human beings, but that they had to give details about the people involved. Slowly, the aliens altered the bargain until they decided they wouldn't abide by it at all. Back in 1979, this was the reality, and the fire-fight at Dulce occurred quite by accident. I was involved in building an addition to the deep underground military base at Dulce, which is probably the deepest base. It goes down seven levels and over 2.5 miles deep. At that particular time, we had drilled four distinct holes in the desert, and we were going to link them together and blow out large sections at a time. My job was to go down the holes and check the rock samples, and recommend the explosive to deal with the particular rock. As I was headed down there, we found outselves amidst a large cavern that was full of outer-space aliens, otherwise known as large Greys. I shot two of them. At that time, there were 30 people down there. About 40 more came down after this started, and all of them got killed. We had surpised a whole underground base of existing aliens. Later, we found out that they had been living on our planet for a long time, perhaps a million years. This could explain a lot of what is behind the theory of ancient astronauts.


"Anyway, I got shot in the chest with one of their weapons, which was a box on their body, that blew a hole in me and gave me a nasty dose of cobalt radiation. I have had cancer because of that.


"I didn't get really interested in UFO technology until I started work at Area 51, north of Las Vegas. After about two years recuperating after the 1979 incident, I went back to work for Morrison and Knudson, EG&G and other companies. At Area 51, they were testing all kinds of peculiar spacecraft. How many people here are familiar with Bob Lazar's story? He was a physicist working at Area 51 trying to decipher the propulsion factor in some of these craft.

And killed himself? What kind of revenge is that? I don't believe there was a weapon involved in his suicide.

This is what the editor of "http://www.subversiveelement.com/DulceSchneider.html" has to say as far as his death:

Editor's Note: Phil Schneider, a very brave man, recently lost his life due to what appeared to be a military-style execution in January 1996. He was found dead in his apartment with piano wire still wrapped around his neck. According to some sources, he had been brutally tortured repeated before being killed. Phil Schneider was an ex-government engineer who was involved in building underground bases. He was one of three people to survive the 1979 fire fight between the large Greys and U.S. intelligence and military forces at Dulce underground base.

Sorry, but IMO, I don't think someone would stage such a murder just to get attention although nothing can be ruled out! I think its rather he knew too much and had to be "silenced"

Originally posted by SkepticGreek74

Sorry, but IMO, I don't think someone would stage such a murder just to get attention although nothing can be ruled out! I think its rather he knew too much and had to be "silenced"

Yea, maybe you're right. After all, I'm just expressing an opinion. I doubt if we'll ever know the truth of the matter. Thanks for the input.

Originally posted by johnlear
Thanks you yfxxx. Then by application of the inverse-square law (Bullialdus/Newton) which states that the gravitational attraction between two massive objects, in addition to being directly proportional to the product of their masses, is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them, would you agree that the neutral point between the earth and the moon, that is the point at which an object would experience the same pull of gravity from both the earth and the moon, (and thereby be at the 'neutral point), to be approximately 25,000 miles?

25,000 miles from where?

And would you agree to accept the following numbers for our computations?

Radius of the earth=3,960 miles
radiius of the moon=1,080
distance between the earth and the moon= 240,000 miles

Yes, the values are correct.

Anyway, in a (totally theoretical) static situation, the "neutral point" as you describe it would be at ~216,000 miles from the center of Earth (and therefore ~24,000 miles from the center of the Moon).

However, the best "neutral point" on the Earth-Moon line in the actual dynamic reality (Moon and Earth orbiting their common center of gravity) would be the Lagrangian Point L1. This is ~202,000 miles from the center of Earth (and therefore ~38,000 miles from the center of the Moon).

When an arbitrary "free-falling" object, e.g. a spacecraft, reaches a "neutral point" (where the magnitude of accelerations by Earth and Moon are equal) of course depends on the trajectory (which in realistic cases always includes angular components relative to Earth and Moon) and can't be easily calculated.

Anyway, I know what you're up to . But as you can see from the above, any quote on a "neutral point" is completely meaningless when taken out of context.

Furthermore, to be a bit more specific , NASA used a term called "lunar sphere of influence" during their moon landing missions. The term appears to have been somewhat loosely defined as the point where spacecraft navigation was changed to a Moon-based frame of reference. A "neutral point" may therefore be defined where the spacecraft enters this "lunar sphere of influence", but this does certainly not necessarily have to be (and, looking at the quoted numbers, actually wasn't) equal to the point where Earth's and Moon's gravititational pull are of equal magnitude! E.g., it might make sense to define the border of the "lunar sphere of influence" as the point in the trajectory where the changes in the Moon's gravitational pull dominate the Earth's. This way, you get a "neutral point" of very roughly 40,000+ miles from lunar surface. Anyway, judging from various quotes found on the web, it appears clear that there has been a confusion of NASA's "lunar sphere of influence" term and the "equal gravitational pull" calculation. I wouldn't be surprised if the confusion actually originated from NASA itself because of a careless remark by a spokesman or scientist.

However, all the discussions about vaguely defined "neutral points" don't change one bit of the fact that lunar size and mass are known with high-enough precision form non-spaceflight data to rule out any "unusually high" lunar surface gravity.

Regards
yf

Originally posted by yfxxx
25,000 miles from where?

I assume you're kidding... but if you're not... from the center of the moon of course. We're taking about the moons gravity correct?

Anyway, in a (totally theoretical) static situation, the "neutral point" as you describe it would be at ~216,000 miles from the center of Earth (and therefore ~24,000 miles from the center of the Moon).

OK. 24,000 miles.

However, the best "neutral point" on the Earth-Moon line in the actual dynamic reality (Moon and Earth orbiting their common center of gravity) would be the Lagrangian Point L1. This is ~202,000 miles from the center of Earth (and therefore ~38,000 miles from the center of the Moon).

OK. 38,000 miles.

When an arbitrary "free-falling" object, e.g. a spacecraft, reaches a "neutral point" (where the magnitude of accelerations by Earth and Moon are equal) of course depends on the trajectory (which in realistic cases always includes angular components relative to Earth and Moon) and can't be easily calculated.

Yes it can. That is the instant (and the distance from the moon or the earth) that the speed a spacecraft, on its way to the moon, increases its speed. In other words its no longer being attracted as much by the earths gravity as by the moons gravitational pull. Thats referred to as the 'neutral point'.

Anyway, I know what you're up to . But as you can see from the above, any quote on a "neutral point" is completely meaningless when taken out of context.

Its not taken out of context. All I am requesting from you is what you are claiming as the neutral point, that is, the point where the earth and moons gravitational pull on an object such as a spacecraft is equal.

it might make sense to define the border of the "lunar sphere of influence" as the point in the trajectory where the changes in the Moon's gravitational pull dominate the Earth's. This way, you get a "neutral point" of very roughly 40,000+ miles from lunar surface.

OK. 40,000 miles

Anyway, judging from various quotes found on the web, it appears clear that there has been a confusion of NASA's "lunar sphere of influence" term and the "equal gravitational pull" calculation. I wouldn't be surprised if the confusion actually originated from NASA itself because of a careless remark by a spokesman or scientist.

Not to mention the confusion on this debate.

However, all the discussions about vaguely defined "neutral points" don't change one bit of the fact that lunar size and mass are known with high-enough precision form non-spaceflight data to rule out any "unusually high" lunar surface gravity.

If I understand you correctly you are saying that we can determine the mass of the moon more accurately with non-spacecraft data than we can with the exact point a spacecraft is influenced my the moons gravity?

I think not. All that is required to refute that argument is to look at all the US and Russian spacecraft that crashed on or wildly missed the moon at the beginning of the space program. Thats because they assumed that the moons gravity was one sixths that of earth based on 'non-spacecraft' data.

So I respectfully request that you pick a neutral point so that we can get on with the debate:

24,000 miles?
38,000 mies?
40,000 miles?

Werner von Braun says its 43,495 miles. What does yfxxx say?

There can only be ONE neutral point and that point is the exact distance from the moon that a spacecraft is equal attracted by the earth and the moon: the neutral point.


Regards
jl

@John Lear:

I will end this completely pointless "discussion" here. I demonstrated beyond doubt that one can calculate the size and mass (and thus surface gravity) of the moon with good accuracy and without any "guesswork" whatsoever without using spacecraft! Yet you claim (based on a very easily misunderstood quote!) that this calculation is totally incorrect!

This is beyond "conspiracy theories", this is just terminally stupid! Next time you'll claim that the Earth is flat! If you really and honestly think that NASA (and every astronomer on Earth!) is "covering up" that the Moon has a mass which is much different from the published one, you are .... REMOVED

Regards
yf

Admin edit: Personal insults/attacks at members is strictly forbidden and against the T&C.

[edit on 15-2-2007 by SimonGray]

Originally posted by Freezer


My best guess would be that they have tried to communicate with the people of earth, and failed. As you know the military suppresses this type of activity, and maybe the aliens know this. Perhaps they feel the only way to get through to us and send us a clear message, (without the military interference) is to make it real obvious. We certainly haven't taken the hint, that they're here, and maybe for very good reason, as our planet is getting destroyed, and they perhaps know the end result, and our trying to warn us of impending danger.

This would be a very good point but my question is: why to wait till 2012 and not to do know? The secrecy is the same, 5 more years given or taken won't change anything?

Originally posted by yfxxx
@John Lear:

I will end this completely pointless "discussion" here. I demonstrated beyond doubt that one can calculate the size and mass (and thus surface gravity) of the moon with good accuracy and without any "guesswork" whatsoever without using spacecraft! Yet you claim (based on a very easily misunderstood quote!) that this calculation is totally incorrect!

This is beyond "conspiracy theories", this is just terminally stupid! Next time you'll claim that the Earth is flat! If you really and honestly think that NASA (and every astronomer on Earth!) is "covering up" that the Moon has a mass which is much different from the published one, you are .... REMOVED

Regards
yf

Admin edit: Personal insults/attacks at members is strictly forbidden and against the T&C.

[edit on 15-2-2007 by SimonGray]

You mean you've declared yourself the winner of our debate and I didn't even get to present my argument? That seems hardly fair. Can't you just let me at least present my side before you win?

And, uh, by the by, whats that 'easily misunderstood quote'? By who? What was said?

Respectfully,

jl