Helium 3 is nuclear fuel.
Don't mind him.

Furthermore, let me thank Sherpa for the one and only kind, open reply from 'the opposite side' in this entire thread.

My issue is not a freedom to believe what you want. My issue is that the ideas and thoughts he puts forth as serious fact have absolutely no backing. Not by anyone outside this community, and most importantly, not from him, despite repeated requests. He did not even give me the 'I can't!' speech, though most likely because we both know that'd be bunk.

As much as I'd like to believe we're not alone, or believe in the fantastic concept that there is a base on the moon -- I have no reason to. And neither do any of you; what I am seeing is essentially that he is lying to you all, and you believe it on the grounds that 'he said it'.

I'm asking for proof, to dignify his beliefs and for him to respect myself, and the rest of you.

Lastly, to argue that he can't say what he knows is a bit ambiguous, considering half of his answers have been 'It's simple logic' and 'It's obvious.'
If it's either of those, he should be easily able to explain it to us, who 'can't get it', rather than acting passive-aggressive and insulting our intelligences.

Edit: This brings to mind a lasting question:
He doesn't even know what Helium-3 is utilized for.
He integrates it into his little Sci-Fi story about being used for Zero-Point.

Shouldn't that say enough?

---Best wishes to everyone else, who isn't under some sort of mental dementia.
[Clinically, not being crude, here.]

Remember, 'Deny Ignorance' works both ways.

[edit on 10-8-2007 by Iblis]

And what evidence do you have to support your point of view? Whats the matter, Bill O Reilly didn't do a report on this, and you automatically think Lear is lying?

Originally posted by Iblis
Helium 3 is nuclear fuel.
Don't mind him.

Furthermore, let me thank Sherpa for the one and only kind, open reply from 'the opposite side' in this entire thread.

My issue is not a freedom to believe what you want. My issue is that the ideas and thoughts he puts forth as serious fact have absolutely no backing. Not by anyone outside this community, and most importantly, not from him, despite repeated requests. He did not even give me the 'I can't!' speech, though most likely because we both know that'd be bunk.

As much as I'd like to believe we're not alone, or believe in the fantastic concept that there is a base on the moon -- I have no reason to. And neither do any of you; what I am seeing is essentially that he is lying to you all, and you believe it on the grounds that 'he said it'.

I'm asking for proof, to dignify his beliefs and for him to respect myself, and the rest of you.

Lastly, to argue that he can't say what he knows is a bit ambiguous, considering half of his answers have been 'It's simple logic' and 'It's obvious.'
If it's either of those, he should be easily able to explain it to us, who 'can't get it', rather than acting passive-aggressive and insulting our intelligences.

Edit: This brings to mind a lasting question:
He doesn't even know what Helium-3 is utilized for.
He integrates it into his little Sci-Fi story about being used for Zero-Point.

Shouldn't that say enough?

---Best wishes to everyone else, who isn't under some sort of mental dementia.
[Clinically, not being crude, here.]

Remember, 'Deny Ignorance' works both ways.

[edit on 10-8-2007 by Iblis]

Hi Iblis,

Ok, this is the way I see it, John has had the front to publicly present his beliefs and opinions which are radical and bound to cause denial and ridicule, in my opinion that is a brave man.

There is evidence of some of those beliefs and it is easy to do some digging on the web to find them, this I think is important to do before making up your mind, in this way it saves John going through the basics with you.
It is also a good idea to go through all the threads on here concerning him this also will build background.
Regarding your approach to him you have to remember he has gone through these quetions dozens of times, so your approach could be a little more respectfull, coming in with all guns blazing will get a negative response with almost anyone.

As far as people "believing it because he said it", I can only speak for myself, that because of the exposure John has had it introduced me to the idea, from which I did my own research and I am satisfied with the information I found so I support most of what he presents.

Now on to proof firstly see above, and now I have to assume you have read through the thread "John Lears Moon Pictures" because you have stated they are just rocks.
You have seen an alternative image source I presented to another ATS member in this thread and you said "an outcrop of rock, like a pillar" to which I replied "can you see through rock" ?.
Now so far you have not responded to that question so I can not gauge your reaction I would be pleased to hear an answer.

PS My intent is not to cause offence the above are only my observations.

First, to answer the only actual question directed towards me:
No. I cannot.
I based my conclusion off the way the light is striking the surface.

Two, StreetCorner, for someone accusing me of being vile, you're pretty hostile. You automatically ridicule me without explanation, after I've explained in three or four posts by now, my own?
I all-ready explained why I think he's lying.
Unlike Lear, I can call you ignorant and have good reason; read my posts.

Furthermore:

i. His lack of common courtesy.
ii. Lack of knowledge about what he discusses.
iii. Lack of any presentable proof, -while making observations-

Is why I respond the way I do.

I am validated on all fronts, even if they are not the most friendly.

And from looking on the internet, I see many people agree with my viewpoint.

Originally posted by Iblis

I all-ready explained why I think he's lying.
Unlike Lear, I can call you ignorant and have good reason; read my posts.

Furthermore:

i. His lack of common courtesy.
ii. Lack of knowledge about what he discusses.
iii. Lack of any presentable proof, -while making observations-

Many thanks for your post Iblis. Many feel the same as you. Please accept my apologies for anything I have posted which you perceive as 'lack of common courtesy."

it is strange how the craters are hotter then the flat areas. even stranger is that the crater {tycho i believe} farthest south is the hottest. could it be that the dust covering the moon makes a decent insulator? under the dust in the craters is a mineral that heats up pretty well i guess? i've read somewhere a reason why. it was a theory that the moon is much older then the earth and the dust is actually the inside of the moon. the moon is in effect hollow. Supposedly done so by alien beings and brought here as a base to watch us and hide from us with. the article or story i read also said there is records in ancient human history of its arrival, no such thing ever existed and then poof next theres the moon.
i believe they also had scientific evidence to back this up but it was so long ago i dont remember all the details. something about titanium on the surface but could get there without intelligent manipulation. also during a few apollo missions the did ultra sonic testing and the moon rang like a bell. supposedly other equipment from past missions still sending info to earth heard the ringing for hours after the act yet they were placed all over the moon miles away from each other.
i wonder if there is a way to look at the moon with other types of thermal cameras to see if you can find any inner thermal heat? i also wonder what in fared pictures would look like on the dark side. "dark side yeah" they said that was another reason it was artificial was because it didn't rotate.
anyway the whole argument is mute, its not like us poor civilians here at ats will create a probe to go investigate the moon for our selves. we are but simple folk who only know what we read and watch on the boob tube. Perhaps when space travel becomes commercial i will take a moon tour and figure it out for my self. untill then lets debate!

ISBLISS, I apologize if I came off as hostile. I don't think that was the case, but keep in mind that I did read your posts and you really didnt bring much to the table. You kept repeating how Lear had no evidence and etc.

What you fail to notice is that Lear is just one source. His information is similair to my other findings, from other sources, most notably, Alex Collier, David Icke, Jordan Maxwell, Astronaut Gordon Cooper, Buzz Aldrin, Doctor Wolf, and countlesss other pilots and former pentagon officials who became whistle blowers after the grip loosened. This is for us, our kids, do not shoot it down because you feel ashamed of how duped you were your whole life.

I, by no means, feel ashamed.
Please stop trying to tell me what my emotions are, and what my intellect is, Philosopher, and Mr. Lear respectively.

By objections is that he has presented a total sum of zero proof.
With often very accurate predictions which he depicts as common knowledge.
He brought to this thread a single, insubstantial picture -- I asked for some sort of logical debate, and all he can muster is the same tired reply.

Which leads me to obviously believe he has none.

Pity.

You should automatically know who John Lear is. End of conversation. Go listen to some of his Coast to Coast Podcasts. Do more research, i mentioned names, find others as well. Put information together, it all leads to the same answers.

I'm well aware of his history with the CIA, as well as the report he reportedly brought to light, as well as his professional endeavors.

I mean this in the best way:
Don't lecture me on looking for information, when I've been berating that same point this entire thread.

Originally posted by StreetCorner Philosopher
You should automatically know who John Lear is. End of conversation. Go listen to some of his Coast to Coast Podcasts. Do more research, i mentioned names, find others as well. Put information together, it all leads to the same answers.

Why should someone 'automatically' know who John lear is?
He may be well known in the US but outside of there, I doubt anyone has ever heard of him without searching around.

The world doesnt revolve around the USA you know.

Originally posted by mrRviewer
it is strange how the craters are hotter then the flat areas. even stranger is that the crater {tycho i believe} farthest south is the hottest. could it be that the dust covering the moon makes a decent insulator? under the dust in the craters is a mineral that heats up pretty well i guess? i've read somewhere a reason why. it was a theory that the moon is much older then the earth and the dust is actually the inside of the moon. the moon is in effect hollow. Supposedly done so by alien beings and brought here as a base to watch us and hide from us with. the article or story i read also said there is records in ancient human history of its arrival, no such thing ever existed and then poof next theres the moon.
i believe they also had scientific evidence to back this up but it was so long ago i dont remember all the details. something about titanium on the surface but could get there without intelligent manipulation. also during a few apollo missions the did ultra sonic testing and the moon rang like a bell. supposedly other equipment from past missions still sending info to earth heard the ringing for hours after the act yet they were placed all over the moon miles away from each other.
i wonder if there is a way to look at the moon with other types of thermal cameras to see if you can find any inner thermal heat? i also wonder what in fared pictures would look like on the dark side. "dark side yeah" they said that was another reason it was artificial was because it didn't rotate.
anyway the whole argument is mute, its not like us poor civilians here at ats will create a probe to go investigate the moon for our selves. we are but simple folk who only know what we read and watch on the boob tube. Perhaps when space travel becomes commercial i will take a moon tour and figure it out for my self. untill then lets debate!

Hi mrRviewer,

I read your post with interest but I feel we have to be carefull here about a couple of points.

Regarding there being a time in Earths history when the moon didn't exist, there is no scientific proof of this and I have only seen myth and legend so far, however it doesn't stop me being intrigued by this.

The Moon does rotate on it's axis and is in a synchronous orbit with the Earth so it always shows the same face to us, so there really isn't a "dark side" only a "far side".

I think there is a lot of rudeness when someone DEMANDS answers, instead of being polite to someone ... then when they don't comply, or are tired of answering questions that are answered many times on the same site ... they are considered being bad.

If someone asked me the same questions, over and over, I wouldn't respond, or I would tell them fairies. It is all fairies ... just to irk them.

If you look at the picture that you say you didn't see anything ... not at that small resolution, but at a larger one. You will see why you were asked if you can see through rocks. It wasn't a non-sequitor. It was a direct question about that image, that if you researched (it is in threads on ATS), you would see, there is a section of that straight slope that is transparent.

This in itself doesn't mean anything, but, why doctor the photos? There are a lot of airbrushed and manipulated photos for a group that isn't hiding anything. The same, why are they not releasing all the photos the public paid for if they are not hiding something. You know, if you ordered 10 pizzas, paid for them, and they gave you one ... you might complain. These pictures are much more expensive than pizza.

What you are denying is that there is any evidence whatsoever ... in fact, the evidence is straight forward cover ups and failures to release bought and paid for material to the people who purchased it.

If you can't see that, then why hijack and stalk someone's threads and responses? Intellectual infatuation with someone? Not implying anything, just trying to eliminate all possibilities.

I have told you how to compare. That the scale and clarity is not what you are assuming. In fact, the quality of quite horrid considering that some pictures are so clear ... but I already discussed this. If you don't see it, then move on and have a happy life and discussion elsewhere. I am surprised you constant attacking on a single person hasn't given you a warning yet. Anyone that disagrees with you, you are defensive with ... they can't disagree? If they do they are ignorant? How high and mighty of you to decide the truth for everyone else. Ever thought about writing text books?

Mr. Lear did not say that H3 isn't nuclear fuel ... he didn't say it was free energy ... what he said was that wasn't something to focus on ... a different energy than H3 was the future. If you weren't biased/angered so much at this point, you would have caught that.

Before you get mad and attack me. Do I think for certain anything about the moon? Yes, it is up there and I can see it most nights. That is all. I don't assume what NASA tells me, I don't assume what Mr. Lear tells me. As far as I am concerned, I am my own person and I can make my own decisions based on all sources of information available to me ... as of this moment, it is inconclusive in any direction until further study, and more accurate and untainted results come our way.

My worry is this ... with CGI as good as it is ... who is to say any future images we get from any space agency will not be a mock up, minus the things they don't want us to see.

I challenge you, to buy one of those large telescopes I linked to, and show me images from the moon to disprove John. To me, the burden of proof lies on BOTH sides ... because ANYTHING is possible. If you limit yourself beyond that, you are ignorant to the truth people on a rock with limited technology and information don't hold all the answers and their assumption don't consider all possibilities. Without scale, reference, and greater knowledge, perceptions can be distorted either way. We base way too much on earthly knowledge, which is not a requirement for non-earthly characteristics.

I will say, it is a stretch to see the parking garage ... personally, those ramps look too steep, but, being 1/3-1/6 less gravity than on earth, they could be steeper with less problems. Remember, our 'facts' of the moon, come from calculations, not proof. If it was 1/6 gravity, they could jump higher ... 1/3 seems much closer to what we saw on the film.

Believe what you want. I am fine with that. I respect your opinion. But at least have the decency to respect others opinions. Have the dignity to ask nicely and present yourself with honor. Snide remarks and rudeness first, then following with a question doesn't get you anywhere. Ever heard of the statement you catch more flies with honey than vinegar?

Take care, and take a cold shower.

/snerks

"I challenge you to spend hundreds, if not thousands of dollars of your own money just to disprove someone you think is certifiably deranged, and manipulating the innocent curiosity of these board members!"

I think not.

Sherpa --
This post will be brief, and I'll add to it later if you desire; a man has to eat breakfast sometime, you know!

I see a composite of many images, with several intersections blurred, or airbrushed in as to not leave holes.
I've done the same sort of photography before, though since I was able to stay in place, instead of moving thousands of miles an hour, the most I've ever had to do is simply 'lengthen' two pictures so that there was not a break in the panorama.

Originally posted by Iblis
Sherpa --
This post will be brief, and I'll add to it later if you desire; a man has to eat breakfast sometime, you know!

I see a composite of many images, with several intersections blurred, or airbrushed in as to not leave holes.
I've done the same sort of photography before, though since I was able to stay in place, instead of moving thousands of miles an hour, the most I've ever had to do is simply 'lengthen' two pictures so that there was not a break in the panorama.

Excellent!..Well done Iblis, and as before no debate response noted.

Now if I can just press upon you to do the same operation one last time only this time with the Latitude=70 and the Longtitude=240, I think we will be done.

Iblis, you shouldnt be so sure of yourself in the realm of science.
Scientists, rarely have all the right questions, let alone all of the answers.
Just a thought from someone who loves science.

Originally posted by Chorlton

Originally posted by StreetCorner Philosopher
You should automatically know who John Lear is. End of conversation. Go listen to some of his Coast to Coast Podcasts. Do more research, i mentioned names, find others as well. Put information together, it all leads to the same answers.

Why should someone 'automatically' know who John lear is?
He may be well known in the US but outside of there, I doubt anyone has ever heard of him without searching around.

The world doesnt revolve around the USA you know.

Chorlton, your taking it the wrong way. Don't people in the UK dream of owning Lear jets? When someone wants evidence and they know it's impossible to get any, they should just listen to what Lear says because he is who he is. You should know that he invented the Lear jet and was an engineer for the military. You see his credentials on ATS. He is not some smoe making wild claims. He expects you to know how he knows. Whatever he says, he says to either spread fear. Or spread truth. You must search within you to decide what to do with his information. Forget evidence. When they keep something secret, it stays secret. Forget evidence. Look for indirect evidence. Don't ask for others to present evidence for you. Your on the thread, listen, listen some more, and keep listening.