Is John Lear Spreading Disinfo?

page: 9
26
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 30 2007 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Implosion
I think what you have there is a picture of the Deep Impact probe striking the comet, or at least the results thereof.


Actually its a picture of the SECOND explosion after the impact... the one that caught NASA scientists off guard and was seen by telescopes from Earth as it was so bright... Seems NASA has NO IDEA what caused this...

Maybe it wasn't a comet and NASA hit the drive core... Maybe they were testing their targeting ability to hit a pinpoint object so far in space...

In any case that big flash wasn't supposed to happen on a ball of dust and ice




Deep Impact researchers have received some data from orbital and ground-based observatories, most of which report an increase in Tempel 1's luminosity after Impactor crashed into it...

It was like hitting a brick wall; the crater exploded, creating a second, even brighter flash.

An incandescent plume of gas and dust, heated to thousands of degrees and glowing like a bulb, flared like a Roman candle into space, throwing a dark shadow onto the surface of the nucleus. Then a cone of dust and debris rose from the crater and spread like a fan, brilliantly lit by the sun. Scientists with the Hubble Space Telescope estimate that it traveled 1,100 mph, twice the speed of a commercial jet.

Over the next 15 minutes, observers on the ground and in space -- from the Hubble to Lick Observatory on Mount Hamilton - watched the faint comet, 83 million miles away, grow four to five times brighter.


Source: impact.arc.nasa.gov...

So just what the heck are they tossing around up there? It seems smashing spaceships into planetary bodies is NASA's new sport...
So just what are these ships carrying to make a big flash?

Cassini 72.3 pounds of plutonium 238
Galileo 49 pounds of plutonium 238
Ulysses 46 pounds of plutonium 238

Crash landing on the Moon, on purpose. Dozens of spaceships have done it.
science.nasa.gov...

Nasa is considering deliberately destroying a large scientific satellite... the billion-dollar Compton Gamma Ray Observatory... Like the Hubble Space Telescope and the Solar Max satellite before it, the CGRO was designed for in-orbit repair by space shuttle astronauts. But Nasa has no intention of doing this because of budget problems...
news.bbc.co.uk...

Spacecraft Crashes Into Satellite It Was Designed to Connect With
abcnews.go.com...

NASA’s next mission to Moon will not merely orbit the gray satellite, but crash two vehicles into its South Pole to hunt for water ice
www.space.com...

NASA crashes Galileo into Jupiter, Craft ends 14-year exploration with deliberate collision.
media.www.dailytexanonline.com...


Seems the boys just want to have fun... what the heck its only your tax dollars going KABOOM






[edit on 30-4-2007 by zorgon]




posted on Apr, 30 2007 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon


I don't blast anyone, I merely showed that NASA and others know full well that there is an atmosphere, and I most certainly know that John thinks that it is breathable for a short time... And I answered you that I personally do not know this for a fact at this time...


Fair enough, I misinterpreted you position and drew the conclusion that you agreed with John and not just his right to opinion, my bad.


But your right actually it doesn't help that I come in here LOL It truly is a waste of time...




I agree, now get the hell outta here



posted on Apr, 30 2007 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Yikes...sorry, Implosion. I re-read my posting and it sounded pretty acidic. Definitely not intended.
I apologize.


bigfatfurrytexan,

Although I don't agree with most of your ideology, I do respect your humble attitude and spunk. Welcome to ATS and I look forward to doing battle with you
I'm sure I'll see you on my foe list sooner or later


And be honest, Is ATS not the best place in the world for people like us?

Anywhere else we would not even be humored, just laughed off the web.

Anyway just wanted to let you know you have not gone unnoticed and thanks for the contribution.


[edit on 30-4-2007 by kleverone]



posted on Apr, 30 2007 @ 11:05 PM
link   
I really appreciate that you would use the word "humble" to describe me. Thank you very much.



posted on Apr, 30 2007 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
I really appreciate that you would use the word "humble" to describe me. Thank you very much.


I believe in positive power of thought, Jk
I've been on here awhile and sometimes my frustration gets the best of me, as is evident on this very thread. It is a learning process for all of us but for the most part I would say you attitude is genuine and seek truth. Hats off.





[edit on 30-4-2007 by kleverone]



posted on Apr, 30 2007 @ 11:25 PM
link   
I hate the word "debunk"



Definitions of debunk on the Web:

expose while ridiculing; especially of pretentious or false claims and ideas; "The physicist debunked the psychic's claims"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Source.


Perhaps you [anybody] could point me in the direction of the ridicule, I sure as hell missed it.

Something I am noticing more and more, is it is very often those who embrace the more radical viewpoints who are the most close minded of all. Why look for a mundane answer when more outlandish can be dreamed up, usually by vast intellect no doubt...

I'm not a skeptic, I am however a cynic, especially in the ways of my fellow domesticated primates. I have full knowledge of what #s they can be, especially in matters of cash flow, or ego.

It seems, those who call themselves seekers of truth, are actually concerned in little more than being seen to be right. They want to piss higher up the wall than the other guy, and if gnashing of teeth, and stomping of feet is called for in this quest, then so be it.

zorgon, where as the information you have posted regarding Deep Impact is quite fascinating, I still fail to see how it could be described as, and I quote: "electrical discharge on the comet Tempel". To me that seems to be pure conjecture.

You slam a probe into a comet, matter is ejected, seems quite simple to me. Perhaps I have some sort of cerebral dysfunction blinding me to the obvious, I don't know..

I am always interested in different theories regarding our reality, here is a documentary I found to be quite fascinating regarding the electrical nature of the Universe.

What I am not interested in, is the misrepresentation of images to fit in with an individuals particular reality tunnel. I think it should be made clear what is verifiable fact, and what is merely conjecture.

I cannot see for the life of me how obfuscation aids us in determining the truth regarding our reality.

[edit on 1/5/07 by Implosion]



posted on Apr, 30 2007 @ 11:30 PM
link   
I am sorry. These are not my thoughts or theories. They belong to Wallace Thornhill. You can read the whole thing here on Dave Talbotts website:

thunderbolts.info...

As well, if you want comet specific information you might check here:

thunderbolts.info...

read a little on it.

Keep in mind, i think in terms of probability. I see a stone in space, and it makes this long tail that CANNOT be snow, ice, and dust. It is a solid rock. So, i have to look for anothe reason that it makes all that many millions of miles of tail. This is the most logical so far.



posted on Apr, 30 2007 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Implosion

I'm not a skeptic, I am however a cynic, especially in the ways of my fellow domesticated primates. I have full knowledge of what #s they can be, especially in matters of cash flow, or ego.


Amen. Can I join your church?



posted on May, 1 2007 @ 12:17 AM
link   
While I know many people like john,
the issue is whether or not he is spreading disinfo. However, since he only posts
his opinion on what he says, just like the rest of us, this would be very difficult to prove. John Lear is a very intelligent person, with training in many things including from the Intelligence sectors.


He flew both commercially and in missions worldwide for the CIA

Source

Catching him up in anything will prove to be a challenge.

Just use your head.
What do we know about the "Agency"?
there ya go.

To be fair while i may not agree with everything he says, I like certain aspects of the persona. There are some things I do not like. I think this is true of everyone. noone is perfect. What we all have to do is keep our wits about us, and take everything with a grain of salt, just like we would about anyone else.
Peace




posted on May, 1 2007 @ 01:06 AM
link   
Sometimes nothing is as it seems. There a lot of Members seeing things differently than a few others. But sometimes the few others decide what's best for all. I suppose if that's true, rightfully so, for now.

Dallas



posted on May, 1 2007 @ 03:08 AM
link   
One last comment and I'm outta here


"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer

So I guess we are about at Stage Three now huh?




posted on May, 1 2007 @ 08:53 AM
link   
John Lear, (or anyone else inclined to offer an opinion)

The Russians are saying they plan to have a permanent Lunar outpost manned by 2015. The Americans are saying they plan to do the same by 2024. The Chineese are also hoping to get into the game. When these posts become operational do you think the current "operations" on the moon will be disclosed to the public (in a more official manner than here on ATS) or continue to be covered up?


According to this recent UK Telegraph story the American are rebuffing the Russians in terms of cooperation on any lunar missions. Why do you think that is, especially when the Russians seem to think they can get there first?

www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2007/05/01/wmoon01.xml" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2007/05/01/wmoon01.xml

If NASA or parts of NASA knows the true charateristics of the moon, Doesn't it seem likley that Roskosmos also knows this?

Are all these grandious lunar outpost plans just more misdirection and disinformation?

Where is all the He+3 currently being mined on the moon being sent and what's it being used for?



posted on May, 1 2007 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlearYf could you please tell me were I can see an example of crater erosion? Thanks.




www.solarviews.com...

This site lists all known Earth impact craters with diameters >25km. There are only about 25. This IMO is due to 2 main reasons. 1) 75% of the earths surface is water. 2)The craters created on the 25% of the surface composed of land are quickly (in geologic time) eroded.

exobio.ucsd.edu...



posted on May, 1 2007 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Originally posted by darkbluesky


John Lear, (or anyone else inclined to offer an opinion)

The Russians are saying they plan to have a permanent Lunar outpost manned by 2015. The Americans are saying they plan to do the same by 2024. The Chineese are also hoping to get into the game. When these posts become operational do you think the current "operations" on the moon will be disclosed to the public (in a more official manner than here on ATS) or continue to be covered up?



I don't know. Its possible that both the Russians, Chinese, and several other counties participate in our current lunar mining operations that have been operational for about 45 years. Its not reasonable to believe that we could have kept it secret from them for this long.

The fact that we picked the south pole for the supposed new operations means that we are trying to hide the current operation from that new operation.

The new operation would be kind of a 'make work' joke using old technology rockets and mining techniques. That is if it ever gets going. It might be just a 'stall' because there would be too much to attempt to keep secret from the 'new' opertion for instance:

(1) the huge cities currently on the moon
(2) the huge machinery and constructs on the moon
(3) that there is substantial gravity on the moon
(4) that there is a breathable atmosphere on the moon
(5) that there is a civilization on the moon and that they are not US!

To those who suggest that the Russians and the Chinese don't know what we have going up there remember that the Russians got pictures of the moon before we did (at least as far as the public is concerned) so THEY KNOW whats going on. You couldn't keep that kind of secret from the Chinese so THEY KNOW.

Its very possible that Antarctica really did become a massive German base after WW2. There is enough evidence that they did have ET technology. The massive U.S. supply effort that has been going on for many years to Antarctica certainly is't just for the study of penguins.

I hope I get to live long enough to see this played out. The more I see and learn the more comlex it gets.


According to this recent UK Telegraph story the American are rebuffing the Russians in terms of cooperation on any lunar missions. Why do you think that is, especially when the Russians seem to think they can get there first?


Its all a charade.


If NASA or parts of NASA knows the true charateristics of the moon, Doesn't it seem likley that Roskosmos also knows this?


Please see above.


Are all these grandious lunar outpost plans just more misdirection and disinformation?


Yes. Elaborate, premeditated and very effective.


Where is all the He+3 currently being mined on the moon being sent and what's it being used for?


I am not convinced that He+3 is what we are mining. However if we are mining He+3 I would have to admit that I do not have any idea where or how it is being used.



posted on May, 1 2007 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by VType
This is great. A new way to try and twist the vast amount of viable resources John has allready provided.
If he is a disinfo guy its the first truly lousy job the man has performed(see his faa service record). I mean what disinfo guy provides real and undoctored Nasa and Russian images and then daily provides all kinds of one on one insigt(posts)? Most of us serious about the truth see much of what he has stated on the moon and the hush Gov complexes in the World and then continues to provide even more info?
The problem is people dont want to believe the real truth and some folks are paid to debunk or nullify by any means any credible references who have bucked the horrid and appauling system of deciet by our criminally minded at times govt. This is what John and other distinct pilots and astronauts,officials,workers,etc.. who have echoed very similar stories as John.
Time will tell I suppose and I cant wait for the day when the shadow Govt at the control of all this is held accoutable by us or others.
For moon annomolies its no simpler than downloading some early moon images from nasa or even their world wind viewer,spending some time and using a good photo enhancing program and boom you have some parts of a story that Nasa and others would Love to leave out of their playbook.
John has 100% credibility with me as I had heard of the pilot John Lear long before ATS and his earlier coming out of the black shadows with his moon and alien accounts.
The funny thing is he's way more credible than 95% of you and I and for that matter those employed by our Govt. if you want to boil it down.



[edit on 30-4-2007 by VType]

VType said it all before I could. Good job, VType. John Lear, you are the best in the biz.

[edit on 1-5-2007 by carnival_of_souls2047]



posted on May, 1 2007 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

Originally posted by yfxxx
And exactly how would this solve the problem of crater erosion - something which would definitely happen in a dense atmosphere, but obviously hasn't happened?


Yf could you please tell me were I can see an example of crater erosion?

There is none on the moon.


However, there should be lots of more or less eroded craters on the moon, if the latter has an atmosphere as dense as you claim. So, look for the eroded craters. I'm sure you'll have no difficulties at all finding some, since you already found much more unexpected items and artifacts. So, John, go for it and search the evidence for moon crater wind-erosion!


Either that, or put your "theory" of the moon's atmosphere where it belongs (hint: a dark place
)!



This is beginning to sound like your infamous centrifugal force fairy tale. Thanks.

Nonono, John, don't touch this, because it's not good for all your pet "theories"! This is science - physics, to be exact. You may have heard about it, although I'm not sure. Obviously, however, you never learned anything about it. Therefore it's not my fault, that the concept of so-called pseudo forces in non-inertial frames of reference is at least three levels above your understanding of physics. I'm definitely not wasting my time by trying to explain it to you.

Regards
yf



posted on May, 1 2007 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Originally posted by yfxxx


There is none on the moon.



Yes, that is what you say. However my question was do you have an example, not necessarily on the moon, but on earth, for example, of what crater erosion looks like so that I know what I am looking for.



Obviously, however, you never learned anything about it. Therefore it's not my fault, that the concept of so-called pseudo forces in non-inertial frames of reference is at least three levels above your understanding of physics. I'm definitely not wasting my time by trying to explain it to you.


I would agree that you are not wasting your time because although I may not understand there may be someone else here who would. I actually don't need complex frames of reference three levels above my understanding to argue that there is an atmosphere on the moon. I just have to point to pictures NASA or the Lick Observatory has taken. You can trot out all the 'scientific' references you want but the fact is I have photographs and you cannot explain them. (Lick Observatory January 17, 1946).

But in that frame of reference (
) please refresh my memory: what is the neutral point between the earth and the moon (as stated in 'distance from the moon') in miles? Thanks.



posted on May, 1 2007 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
I just have to point to pictures NASA or the Lick Observatory has taken. You can trot out all the 'scientific' references you want but the fact is I have photographs and you cannot explain them. (Lick Observatory January 17, 1946).



www.ucolick.org...

I'm not seeing anything when I search that date through their site. Do you have a link to the image?





But in that frame of reference (
) please refresh my memory: what is the neutral point between the earth and the moon (as stated in 'distance from the moon') in miles? Thanks.





Here are the center-to-center, and surface-to-surface measurements, in kilometers.

But, I believe, you're looking for their center of gravity, correct?







In reality, the moon does not revolve around the earth. Both earth and moon revolve around their common center of gravity. What is a center of gravity? Think of it this way: If the earth and moon were connected by a stick, at what point would you have to hold your finger to balance the stick? That's the center of gravity. Since the earth weighs much more than the moon, the center of gravity of the earth-moon system is much closer to the earth than to the moon. In fact, it is so much closer to the earth that the center of gravity (shown by the X in the diagram at right) is actually inside the earth - about one-third of the way in.


So if Earth's radius is: ~3,963.189 miles a third of that would be ~1,300 miles below Earth's surface.

Regards.



posted on May, 1 2007 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Yes, that is what you say. However my question was do you have an example, not necessarily on the moon, but on earth, for example, of what crater erosion looks like so that I know what I am looking for.

DarkBlueSky has posted a photo and links, a few postings above mine.



But in that frame of reference (
) please refresh my memory: what is the neutral point between the earth and the moon (as stated in 'distance from the moon') in miles? Thanks.


I have already explained this at least twice in the "Questions for John Lear" thread, in enough detail so that anyone with even the slightest grasp in Newtonian physics could understand it. Yet you completely failed to do that. Therefore, you are a hopeless case - I could just as well talk to a wall, and I don't see any good in doing that.

Keep looking for interesting things in your moon photos. Maybe you find the Virgin Mary, and can sell the photo on ebay
!

Regards
yf



posted on May, 1 2007 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
But, I believe, you're looking for their center of gravity, correct?


In fact, what Mr. Lear refers to as "neutral point" is the distance (to the moon's surface, IIRC) at which an Apollo spacecraft experienced equal effective gravitational "pull" toward the earth and the moon.

Mr. Lear has read somewhere that this "neutral point" was measured when the craft was about 38,000 miles (IIRC) from the moon. Now, using a static earth-moon system and totally ignoring that a reference system, in which the earth and moon are fixed, is a non-inertial rotating one, Mr. Lear calculates that the moon's mass (and therefore its surface gravity) is much higher than "conventional science" says.

You can read my first long reply on the issue here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Mr. Lear originally ignored this, but after a "reminder", answered:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The issue is then brought up in a few postings in that thread, e.g. by me:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Immediately after the above, Mr. Lear answered:

www.abovetopsecret.com... ,

showing that he still had no idea what he was talking about.

Finally I gave it a final try, realizing that terms like "Lagrange Point" and "Effective Potential" were a bit too complicated for Mr. Lear:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


You see, discussing such scientific issues with Mr. Lear becomes quite pointless after a while, because he is unable to discuss these things at all.

Regards
yf





new topics
top topics
 
26
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join