It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Is John Lear Spreading Disinfo?

page: 31
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 07:41 AM
reply to post by zorgon

I've never seen that experiment before and the first thing from my mind is 'I wanna have one' great find Zorgon I salute you for such a good find.

posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 10:06 PM
reply to post by johnlear

Hello John, found this older post, off-topic of 9/11 of course. Before I worked for a major carrier I flew for Scenic, there in LAS. So we knew then about EG&G - they parked on the West side of the field, if I remember correctly. Interesting, and not surprising, that the shuttle ops were moved to Nellis. I actually had a Q clearance, since Scenic did some charter work for, we were told, DOD.

posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 10:07 PM
Follow-up, was either DOD or DOE, it was a long time ago...

posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 07:11 PM

Originally posted by Refuse Winst[/i

"John Lear's telling them about the atmosphere on the moon!"
"Yeah, but he's also going on about that crazy soul tower stuff... don't worry, nobody will believe him. He's not worth the trouble"
Just my thoughts...

The official government term for that is 'plausible deniability'

Plausible deniability is a political doctrine originally developed in the United States of America in the 1950s and applied to operations by the then newly formed Central Intelligence Agency The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Plausible deniability involves the creation of power structures and chains of command loose and informal enough to be denied if necessary. The idea was that the CIA (and, later, other bodies) could be given controversial instructions by powerful figures -- up to and including the president himself -- but that the existence and true source of those instructions could be denied if necessary; if, for example, an operation went disastrously wrong and it was necessary for the administration to disclaim responsibility.

The doctrine had two major flaws. First, it was an open door to the abuse of authority; it required that the bodies in question could be said to have acted independently, which in the end was tantamount to giving them license to act independently. Second, it rarely worked when invoked; the denials made were rarely plausible and were generally seen through by both the media and the populace.

Just to Stir the Pot...
Food for Thought...

Sorry John I couldn't resist

posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 07:20 PM

Originally posted by XtrozeroThe last time someone tried to do that they all cut their nuts off and committed suicide to catch a ride on the back side of a comet… I don’t think it worked…

Well there is a problem with that... IF we have a soul and it goes somewhere after we die... what if they snagged that comet to escape the 'prison' of Earth? Can you say for sure they did not? Now wouldn't that be a kicker?

Cherry Kool Aid, anyone? I made a fresh back this morning

posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 07:34 PM

Originally posted by shd
I've never seen that experiment before and the first thing from my mind is 'I wanna have one' great find Zorgon I salute you for such a good find.

Well the good news is that they are finally available on sale...


The bad news is the skeptics still don't get it how easy anti gravity is

posted on Oct, 12 2007 @ 01:48 AM

Originally posted by zorgon
Well the good news is that they are finally available on sale...


"Finally" on sale? I have such a "Levitron"-style toy for 12 years now

The bad news is the skeptics still don't get it how easy anti gravity is

The "Levitron" isn't anti-gravity at all. It's just magnetism (very cleverly used, though
). If you call everything, which keeps heavy objects from falling down, "anti-gravity", all aircraft use "anti-gravity technology", too


[edit on 12.10.2007 by yfxxx]

posted on Oct, 12 2007 @ 02:35 AM
reply to post by yfxxx

Ive got 2 personal Anti-gravity machines. Theyre called 'Arms' and I can use them to move my feet and body off the ground when I pull on them via a bar etc.

posted on Oct, 12 2007 @ 06:45 PM
Originally posted by weedwhacker

Hello John, I worked for a major carrier I flew for Scenic, there in LAS. So we knew then about EG&G - they parked on the West side of the field, if I remember correctly. Interesting, and not surprising, that the shuttle ops were moved to Nellis. I actually had a Q clearance, since Scenic did some charter work for, we were told, DOD.

Thanks for the post weedwhacker. So did I and I did to. What was your
seniority number?

posted on Oct, 17 2007 @ 02:02 PM
Okay Time to Spin another 'Yarn"


Catchy title?

What are "Moon Fountains" you ask?

Well let me give you an Earthly example....

Pretty isn't it? Well imagine this scene under Saffron Skies on the Moon... Now wouldn't THAT be an amazing sight to see?

Well it seems that NASA has been holding out on us... (go figure, huh?)

In the early 1960s before Apollo 11, several early Surveyor spacecraft that soft-landed on the Moon returned photographs showing an unmistakable twilight glow low over the lunar horizon persisting after the sun had set. Moreover, the distant horizon between land and sky did not look razor-sharp, as would have been expected in a vacuum where there was no atmospheric haze.

But most amazing of all, Apollo 17 astronauts orbiting the Moon in 1972 repeatedly saw and sketched what they variously called "bands," "streamers" or "twilight rays" for about 10 seconds before lunar sunrise or lunar sunset. Such rays were also reported by astronauts aboard Apollo 8, 10, and 15.

Well how about that?
sunrise and sunset rays on the Moon...

Here is a comparison picture from NASA...

:Above: On the left are lunar "twilight rays" sketched by Apollo 17 astronauts; on the right are terrestrial crepuscular rays photographed by author Trudy E. Bell."

Here on Earth we see something similar: crepuscular rays. These are shafts of light and shadow cast by mountain ridges at sunrise or sunset. We see the shafts when they pass through dusty air. Perhaps the Moon's "twilight rays" are caused, likewise, by mountain shadows passing through levitating moondust.
Many planetary scientists in the 1970s thought so, and some of them wrote papers to that effect (see the "more information" box at the end of this story for references).

But without an atmosphere, how could dust hover far above the Moon's surface? Even if temporarily kicked up by, say, a meteorite impact, wouldn't dust particles rapidly settle back onto the ground?

Well, no--at least not according to the "dynamic fountain model" for lunar dust recently proposed by Timothy J. Stubbs, Richard R. Vondrak, and William M. Farrell of the Laboratory for Extraterrestrial Physics at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center.

"The Moon seems to have a tenuous atmosphere of moving dust particles," Stubbs explains. "We use the word 'fountain' to evoke the idea of a drinking fountain: the arc of water coming out of the spout looks static, but we know the water molecules are in motion." In the same way, individual bits of moondust are constantly leaping up from and falling back to the Moon's surface, giving rise to a "dust atmosphere" that looks static but is composed of dust particles in constant motion.

and you guys thought we were crazy...
Now NASA is spinning Yarns about "levitating dust" and 'it seems to have a tenuous atmosphere"

Here is the page of sketches from the Apollo 17 astronaut... I am going to see if they will send me others...

Now here is NASA's Yarn.... And I just KNOW Mr Furry and Matyas will LOVE this one...

In Audio...

Audio File: Moon Fountains MP3

In excerpt...

On the Moon, there is no rubbing. The dust is electrostatically charged by the Sun in two different ways: by sunlight itself and by charged particles flowing out from the Sun (the solar wind).

On the daylit side of the Moon, solar ultraviolet and X-ray radiation is so energetic that it knocks electrons out of atoms and molecules in the lunar soil. Positive charges build up until the tiniest particles of lunar dust (measuring 1 micron and smaller) are repelled from the surface and lofted anywhere from meters to kilometers high, with the smallest particles reaching the highest altitudes, Stubbs explains. Eventually they fall back toward the surface where the process is repeated over and over again.

If that's what happens on the day side of the Moon, the natural question then becomes, what happens on the night side? The dust there, Stubbs believes, is negatively charged. This charge comes from electrons in the solar wind, which flows around the Moon onto the night side. Indeed, the fountain model suggests that the night side would charge up to higher voltages than the day side, possibly launching dust particles to higher velocities and altitudes.

Day side: positive. Night side: negative. What, then, happens at the Moon's terminator--the moving line of sunrise or sunset between day and night?

There could be "significant horizontal electric fields forming between the day and night areas, so there might be horizontal dust transport," Stubbs speculates. "Dust would get sucked across the terminator sideways." Because the biggest flows would involve microscopic particles too small to see with the naked eye, an astronaut would not notice dust speeding past. Still, if he or she were on the Moon's dark side alert for lunar sunrise, the astronaut "might see a weird, shifting glow extending along the horizon, almost like a dancing curtain of light." Such a display might resemble pale auroras on Earth.

Astronauts need to know, because in the years ahead NASA plans to send people back to the Moon, and deep dark craters are places where they might find pockets of frozen water--a crucial resource for any colony. Will they also encounter swarms of electric dust?

"Swarms of Electric Dust" ??? "Glowing Shimmering Skies?"

That recalls that 1955 study we posted in the Aristarchus pages...

Imagine that... they knew about it YEARS before Apollo... I guess they didn't feel it important enough to make the News at 11...

NASA Science Reports - Rest of Article

posted on Oct, 17 2007 @ 07:26 PM
reply to post by zorgon

Electrostatic Levitation? That is exactly what i say is the driving force of the matrian sandstorms, too.

I see this type of phenomenon out here in west texas all the time. it is awesome to look out over 20 miles of horizon bookending the dark red soil of local cotton crops, and see vortexes swirling back and form lazily, sucking red dust HIGH into the sky. When this is happening, static electricity is always very high.

On earth, however, it is caused more by the wind causing the iron rich soil to rub back and forth as it blows around in the wind.

Now, when you consider the admittedly charged surface of the moon, the "glowies" become much more recognizable as an electrical phenomenon, and you have a much better explanation for the rilles in the region of Aristarchus.

posted on Oct, 17 2007 @ 07:28 PM
Urg, it's quite a bit of a logical stretch from a tenuous trace atmosphere to something that an organism could actually breathe.

posted on Oct, 17 2007 @ 09:40 PM
reply to post by soulstealer2099

Sorry but I dont buy the "old man" theory you presume.
John has been very consistent and is quite well spoken. And has demonstrated many times the facilities of both his concepts and his knowledge of what he speaks.
He hangs pretty well with many of our true Scienctific Debunks and his Aviation understandings are indisputable. Not too mention the things and people he has been around over his lifetime just lends more credibility to his honesty in his beliefs IMO.

[edit on 17-10-2007 by VType]

posted on Oct, 17 2007 @ 09:45 PM
reply to post by VType

I agree with you in that JL is just too articulate to have some kind of psychiatric disorder. However, once psychiatric disorders and the profit motive can be ruled out (both can), we are faced with the painful truth that we are probably dealing with a government disinfo agent who is trying to steer us all away from the truth.

posted on Oct, 18 2007 @ 12:01 AM

WORTHLESS, childish bollocks laden posts have been deleted, the member post banned for 3 days in the hope they can READ the TAC of this site and return with something close to ADDING to a friendly discussion...

I'll leave the "who" to your imagination.


posted on Oct, 25 2007 @ 07:13 PM
reply to post by Rockpuck

If you think John Lear is a complete hoax, why are you here.?
I like John Lear, I think he is a very interesting person. I collect all his iinterviews and burn them to dvd.
I dont agree with every little thing the man says, but I didnt agree with my mother on allot of things either.
John sounds like a super cool person, he is very intelligent.
He has a great speaking voice and would be a great radio personality.
I admire the heck out of him, and I wish he was 55 years old instead of 65 so we could have him around longer.
But I am getting older too, so it happens.
I heard he lost his gold mine he had for retirement and I feel sorry for the guy.
It was the man's hobby. So sad.
But, I am sure he is rich enough to sort that out or go find something else to do.
So John Lear, if you are a disinfo agent, I collect your work and burn it to dvd and you have a great speaking voice and you are very interesting.

posted on Oct, 25 2007 @ 07:33 PM
reply to post by uberarcanist

John Lear does not have a Pshyc. disorder.
I remember my Grandad, we called him "Buck", he use to tell stories and we didnt know how true they were, but we love to listen to ol' Buck tell them.
John is telling stories, maybe they are true and maybe not.
John may not know, and probably does not, not for a certain fact.
I have been around for 47 years now and I know that allot of what john says is true.
You can figure it out for your self.
Anyone that can look out at the night sky in the country and see all those stars and believe we are alone is, well, very full of themselves to put it nicely.
I am going to request that John Lear tell us about Dulce, N.M. and without getting cut off like George Noorey did to him.
I would like to hear John talk to us about the 1948 crash at or near Aztec, N.M.
We are not getting anyone else to tell us, (maybe if hell freeze's over) but good ol"John at least tells us and lets us decide.
I would like to know more about Hawthorne, Ca.
I wish the guy could have been my dad.
How cool would that be.?
So cool it could never happen to me.
John Lear is outstanding. I will never complain anytime he speaks. I collect every morsel and talk I can find and listen to them over and over.
I must be the sick one.
But I am actually very rich, in spirit.
And with John Lear interviews.

posted on Oct, 25 2007 @ 08:19 PM
reply to post by malpaso

I certainly don't believe we are alone. I believe an extraterrestrial craft crashed at Roswell. I believe one crashed up in Shag Harbor. I believe the Black Triangle sightings are legit. I AM NOT A HARDCORE SKEPTIC!!! However, when I read most of John's posts I get wild stories with no hard evidentiary backup.

And I refuse to believe these posts until John gives me a really good reason to do so.

posted on Oct, 25 2007 @ 08:36 PM
Originally posted by uberarcanist

And I refuse to believe these posts until John gives me a really good reason to do so.

Thanks for the post uberarcanist. I was just thinking that you might be happier if you put me on ignore. You certainly do seem to have a lot of complaints about what I have to say and, truthfully, I don't see it getting any better.

Somehow I doubt that anything I could post would satisfy you.

Just a suggestion. Thanks again for the post.

posted on Oct, 25 2007 @ 08:42 PM
reply to post by johnlear

I will not put you on ignore because this is not just about me, John. This is about what you choose to post here and the impact it has on all of us. So, until you CAN prove what you post is true or I just get tired of this forum altogether, I will continue to post criticism.

new topics

top topics

<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in