There seem to be some inconsistencies with Adamski's story. Firstly,
Originally posted by johnlear
Magnificent mountains, some white-topped with snow, some barren and rocky, very similar to earth.
Originally posted by johnlear
The beaches on the lakes have sand that is very white and fine like on the finest beaches on earth.
White-topped mountains and white sandy beaches. And, yet:
Originally posted by johnlear
At night the colors cease and the domes become luminous with a soft, yellowish light.
Originally posted by johnlear
Venus has a constant cloud cover which is a pale yellow color and the reflection makes the oceans and the lakes yellow in color.
This seems to be inconsistent. The yellow color that makes it through the atmosphere colors the oceans and lakes with a yellow tint and, yet,
doesn't give mountain snow or white sand a yellow tint? Now, I'm not an expert in optics, but when I put in a yellowish bulb in my light fixtures
in my apartment, the light reflected from the walls, painted white, has a yellow tint too. If the cloud cover only lets yellow light through, then
"white" wouldn't be white as we know it... it'd be yellowish. Shouldn't the snow described be yellow snow (don't go there!) and the white sandy
beaches be yellowish sandy beaches?
Again, this is my off-hand knowledge of optics, the color spectrum, and light absobtion... so somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.
Secondly, there is this inconsistency, which may be the largest and most important:
Originally posted by johnlear
The tropical sections of Venus have vegetation similar to earth but are much lusher because of an atmosphere than is much more moist than earth. The
people on Venus rarely see the stars as we do on earth because of the constant cloud cover.
As MajorMalfunction pointed out on the first page, plants and vegetation use photosynthesis to live (that's what makes them plants). Photosynthesis
requries light, specifically light of certain wavelengths to function. If the cloud cover is so dense as to make the oceans and lakes yellow, then
major portions of wavelength would be reduced. I'm no botanist (so someone lease correct me if I'm wrong), but the vegetation shouldn't be
"lush" if a large part of the spectum, which is needed to survive, cannot get through the cloud cover. Indeed, plants die if they don't get the
proper wavelengths of light.
Unless, of course, if photosynthesis requires different wavelengths on Venus, in which case the vegetation would NOT be similar to that of earth.
Plants would be a different color... chlorophyll on earth absorbs red and blue and, hence, plants are green (chlorophyll reflects yellow/green). If
there is no red and blue on Venus (the clouds only let through yellow), plants there wouldn't use chlorophyll and thus would be markedly different
than plants on Earth (espcially in color), they'd have to abosrb yellow light to live.
Also of note,
Originally posted by johnlear
Cars and buses used for transportation vary in size as do those on earth.
If you had knowledge of a fantastic world and were to describe its fantastic transportation system, would you focus half of your discussion on the
variance of size of the cars and busses on the fantastic world? It seems like an amaturish and childlike thing to notice and describe to me.
Instead, this seems to be rhetoric attempting to establish similarity between Venus and Earth.
Originally posted by johnlear
Now, based on NASA’s record of reporting, what sounds more plausible? The Venus described by NASA or the Venus described by John Lear (using George
Adamski’s quotes, and descriptions from John’s remote viewer friends)?
Adamski's story has some major internal inconsistencies. I'm more inclined to believe NASA's story, which doesn't.
[edit on 31-5-2007 by ArbitraryGuy]
) 
