John Lear's Claims Of Civilizations on Most Planets

page: 12
10
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
The mountaineers here will tell you that you need to be extremely fit to survive more than a few hours without an oxygen tank above 25,000ft - and even the best will succumb after a few days. And our atmosphere extends out a lot further than that.


Marvelous Thank you for that
that defines a starting point for me




posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Top of Himalaya Mountains air is thin yet breathable




Is that another of your 'facts?
You really need to work harder. I do hope the other stuff you post is a bit better researched than this? but Im not hopefull.

The "Death Zone" on Everest is 26000 feet.



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Essan
The mountaineers here will tell you that you need to be extremely fit to survive more than a few hours without an oxygen tank above 25,000ft - and even the best will succumb after a few days. And our atmosphere extends out a lot further than that.


Marvelous Thank you for that
that defines a starting point for me

And this should define the ending point…

Since John Lear doesn’t trust pictures of the Moon not printed in books before 1960 or whatever I thought he might trust this article printed in Time magazine in 1957…

The Moon's Atmosphere
Monday, Sep. 23, 1957
www.time.com...


A favorite diversion of amateur astronomers is to watch the moon eclipsing a star. When the star touches the moon's jagged edge, it winks out all at once with no preliminaries. Even the delicate instruments of professional astronomers cannot detect the slightest trace of dimming or wavering. But if an astronomer on the moon were to watch the earth eclipsing a star, he would see a different performance. The star would grow dim and reddish like the setting sun, and its light would be bent by refraction in the earth's atmosphere, making the star appear to shift its position.

The absence of such changes in stars eclipsed by the moon has long been offered as evidence that the moon has no atmosphere, or at least none that could be detected by instruments that use light. This negative report has now been changed slightly. In Britain's New Scientist, Physicist Bruce Elsmore of Cambridge University tells how the new technique of radio astronomy has detected and measured a very thin gas that surrounds the moon.

The Helpful Crab. The radio astronomers of Cambridge's famous Cavendish Laboratory started with the assumption that if the moon has any atmosphere at all, the atoms of gas in it will be ionized (split into electrically charged particles) by sunlight, just as they are in the thin upper fringe of the earth's atmosphere. Such an ionized gas will bend radio waves, and the amount of bending will give by calculation the density of the charged particles.

A fine opportunity came when the moon was scheduled to eclipse the Crab nebula, which is the 4th strongest concentrated source of radio waves in the sky. Watching with a radio telescope, the astronomers noted when the waves from the nebula were cut off by the moon. They reappeared on the other side in about one hour. Calculations showed that the nebula's radio waves had been bent very slightly: about 13 sec. of arc.

Soap-Bubble Film. The density of an atmosphere detected in this way depends partly on what gases it contains, and the radio waves give no such information. Elsmore points out that the moon's gravitation is too feeble to hold comparatively light gases like the oxygen and nitrogen in the earth's atmosphere. Any gas molecules that hang around the moon for long must be much heavier. But the moon may have in addition a temporary atmosphere made of helium and argon given off by radioactivity in the moon's rocks and of other light gases escaping from the moon's interior or contributed by the vaporization of meteors hitting the surface. Elsmore figures that if the moon's atmosphere is half permanent (heavy) and half temporary (light), it will be something like one five-trillionth (2 x 10¯¹³) as dense as the earth's atmosphere.

For those that aren’t familiar with scientific notation that’s an atmosphere 0.0000000000002 as dense as Earth’s… i.e. close enough to a complete vacuum for government work.


If you believe John Lear and tried to take of your face mask to get a breath of fresh air you probably last about 30 seconds without permanent injury.


Here’s a link that blows up (pun intended) the myth that your body will explode in space…

Human Body in a Vacuum
imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Finally, here’s a good analogy that puts the Moon’s atmosphere in perspective…


This barely detectable wisp of gas will offer colonists on the moon no shelter from solar X rays, meteors or other unpleasant features of space. If the earth's atmosphere were compressed to the density of steel, it would form an armor plating 49 in. thick, but the moon's meager atmosphere, compressed in the same way, would be only one-millionth as thick as the thinnest soap-bubble film.

[Note: I believe more recent data puts the Moon’s atmosphere closer to one trillionth of Earth’s]

AD

[fixed typos]

[edit on 6-10-2007 by Access Denied]



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Access Denied
[Note: I believe more recent data puts the Moon’s atmosphere closer to one trillionth of Earth’s]



Hey welcome BACK... missed your cheery presence


LOL I see we have made real progress here... before the argument was no way no how no atmosphere, not we are merely discussing HOW MUCH...

Well your 'recent figures' is off to be sure... and the numbers in time are taken from NASA and refer to NASA's account of pressure not volume but why nit pic


Here are the recent figures according to NASA


Diurnal temperature range: >100 K to



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
LOL I see we have made real progress here... before the argument was no way no how no atmosphere,

Nonsense! Nobody ever claimed that there isn't a single atom of "atmosphere" above the moon surface. All that is strongly disputed is John Lear's claim of a breathable atmosphere!


Now we are merely discussing HOW MUCH...


"Merely how much"?!? This "how much" is the whole point!

And when you quote NASA as a source about the moon's atmosphere (but you need not restrict yourself to NASA - other scientific sources will say essentially the same), you should look at bit closer at the actual numbers:



Total mass of atmosphere: ~25,000 kg
Surface pressure (night): 3 x 10^-15 bar (2 x 10^-12 torr)
Abundance at surface: 2 x 10^5 particles/cm^3


Do you have the slightest idea just how thin this atmosphere is?! Surface pressure on earth is 1 bar. 3x10^-15 bar is about the same as the best "ultra high vacuum" which can be generated by high-tech devices in earth-bound laboratories.

So "mainstream science" and John Lear differ by roughly 14 magnitudes (powers of 10)! That's way more than a "mere" detail!

Regards
yf



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 07:36 PM
link   
this is ridiculous!

why do you think you people are smarter than all the scientists that have dedicated their lives to studying the solar system?

of course, there is always room for discussion, but some things just have to be taken for a fact!

why? well, if nothing else, because one hundred people that are more educated and more professional than you, can, based on empirical evidence, tell you what does the surface of the moon, or mars, or venus, or jupiter, looks like!

everybody can say that they dont trust nasa, that the photos are all fake, that nothing is real, but the thing is, who, or what, CAN we trust?!

yeah, we would all be thrilled if we found some sort of evidence of life on other planets, but in all these years nothing conclusive was presented... blurry and over pixelated images are not proof! and they never will be.

nobody can claim that there is life on venus, for example, because scientists have studied the planet for a very long time, and have learned everything there is to know about venus. there were probes, for gods sake, there were photographs, and there were readings from the surface of the planet!

im sure that john lear, and zorgon, and all these people, have never seen this data, and even if they have, they would never be able to interpret it, because that is not their specialty... lear is supposedly a pilot, and zorgon, well, i dont know what he is...

and take jupiter, one of the plantes that lear thinks has a civilisation. jupiter is a GAS GIANT. gas giants cant support life, at lest not life as we know it.

carl sagan, a man who i greatly respect, had ideas of what life would look like on jupiter, and his ideas were fascinating. i dont want to get into that because i think that everybody who reads this thread should be familiar with it....

but the point is, a civilization on jupter is, well, impossible.

and i would sooner trust carl sagan than john lear, so....



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Well your 'recent figures' is off to be sure... and the numbers in time are taken from NASA and refer to NASA's account of pressure not volume but why nit pic

How do you figure my “recent figures” are off? The numbers in the 1957 Time article are referring to density NOT pressure or volume. Apparently you don’t understand the difference… that’s “why nit pic”. Real science is all about the nitpicking.



Originally posted by zorgon

Here are the recent figures according to NASA


Diurnal temperature range: >100 K to



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by nightsider2007
carl sagan, a man who i greatly respect, had ideas of what life would look like on jupiter, and his ideas were fascinating.

and i would sooner trust carl sagan than john lear, so....


Well John never had the idea to drop a nuclear bomb on the moon just to see if they could stir up organic signs of life...

Carl Sagan did just that with the help of the Air Force....

And you call US crazy?


CARL SAGAN Nuke The Moon - Real Scientists at Play

All I say to that is... its a good thing cooler heads prevailed and they stopped him

As to me? Well I am just a guy living in the late 15th Century playing with swords and thinks he's a Viceroy... no worries... I keep them peace tied



[edit on 6-10-2007 by zorgon]

[edit on 6-10-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Gotta love America...


Don't know whats there?

NUKE IT!



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Well John never had the idea to drop a nuclear bomb on the moon just to see if they could stir up organic signs of life...

Carl Sagan did just that with the help of the Air Force....

And you call US crazy?




yeah, well, neither did carl sagan.

as your own article says, it was a plan made by the air force, and carl sagan only worked on the project.

the air force wanted to nuke the moon just to intimidate the soviet union, and carl sagan wanted the use the explosion for scientific purposes. i really dont see anything wrong with that, and it was not his idea...

and, one more important thing, it didnt happen. it was just a crazy plan made by your government, and im sure there were more of them...



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 07:18 AM
link   
Come on guys, if the great John Lear and his minions insist there are hanging gardens, standing water, and full open pit and open air mining operations on the moon.....well who are we to use verifiable facts, reason and common sense to debunk them?

Zorgon, my advice to you would be to let John Lear fight John Lear's battles. Your getting outright clobbered here.



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by nightsider2007

the air force wanted to nuke the moon just to intimidate the soviet union, and carl sagan wanted the use the explosion for scientific purposes. i really dont see anything wrong with that, and it was not his idea...


And the Gerry Anderson came along and used it for the basis of his TV Series Space 1999


en.wikipedia.org...:_1999



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 09:39 AM
link   


yeah, well, neither did carl sagan.

as your own article says, it was a plan made by the air force, and carl sagan only worked on the project.

the air force wanted to nuke the moon just to intimidate the soviet union, and carl sagan wanted the use the explosion for scientific purposes. i really dont see anything wrong with that, and it was not his idea...

and, one more important thing, it didnt happen. it was just a crazy plan made by your government, and im sure there were more of them...

They were not allowed to ''nuke'' the moon. The ET's would not allow it!! Not my words but those of US Air Force Colonel/ AEC Ross Diedrickson (quality control on Minuteman 1 2 and 3) See The Disclosure Project Witness Video.



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by pippadee

They were not allowed to ''nuke'' the moon. The ET's would not allow it!! Not my words but those of US Air Force Colonel/ AEC Ross Diedrickson (quality control on Minuteman 1 2 and 3) See The Disclosure Project Witness Video.


yeah, we should all listen to greer and his little cult...

documents? photographs? any evidence at all?

didnt think so...

and its much more probable that the aliens didnt allow it, then the fact that it was an insane idea and would never have world wide public support... there were probably laws concerning nuclear weapons and space, too.



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by pippadee
as your own article says, it was a plan made by the air force, and carl sagan only worked on the project.


Well now, there's a common element of any thread zorgon is involved in; he laments that the skeptics won't bother to read his "evidence", yet when we do....we discover that apparently zorgon hasn't bothered to read it, incorrectly comprehended it, or simply skewed it slightly to fit his agenda.



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by MrPenny
 


That is somewhat dishonest.

The Air Force has volumes of classified material. How do we know that it wasn't done?

Carl Sagan didn't hatch the plot, but he did offer "red hat" support for it. He tried to help develop the scientific basis that would offer some non-military explanation for such an experiment.

In legal terms we call that "complicity".



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Originally posted by nightsider2007


yeah, we should all listen to greer and his little cult...



Yes you should. You may learn something. I hardly think hundreds of former servicemen and women ( some with Cosmic Top Secret clearance) is a little cult.

If listening to these people on videotape is too much trouble for you then may I suggest Colonel Philip J Corso's book The Day After Roswell.



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by nightsider2007
yeah, we should all listen to greer and his little cult...


LOL You probably should... but then there could be a thousand insiders and professionals come forward and the skeptics would find a way to label everyone of them a kook or a fraud...


it was an insane idea and would never have world wide public support...


Your right there... insanity to be sure...

Like standing soldiers in row to see what the effect of Atomic Blasts would be while the heads hid in bunkers

Like drafting "Operation Northwood', an exact blueprint for 911

Insanity is what we do best...

"We already have the means to travel among the stars, but these technologies are locked up in black projects and it would take an act of God to ever get them out to benefit humanity.... Anything you can imagine, we already know how to do." -Ben Rich Head of Lockheed at his retirement speech 1993

I suppose he is insane too



Thanks pippadee I didn't have that piece of info



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

LOL You probably should... but then there could be a thousand insiders and professionals come forward and the skeptics would find a way to label everyone of them a kook or a fraud...



no, i would never do that.

i thought that the disclosure project was a great idea, but then came the 800$ weekends and the non-disclosure contracts, light warriors and galactic alliances, and all the stuff greer talks about now.

so excuse me if im skeptical.

the testimonies made sense...

what came later does not.

but i dont want to debate the disclosure project, its not the right time nor the right place for that.



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 09:20 AM
link   
As usual, Zorgon, you take a snippet of a speech and of something that Ben has said to aid your point. I'm almost too tired to go into it, however the context, and verbal inflection, that Ben made when giving that speed (and many others, dealing with the same thing) is missing in your post. But then again, I bet you have not actually heard the speech, only read stuff about it? Do you know why Ben said this in this particular speech, who he was responding too (it was actually a joshing on a group of engineers that were present, sort of an inside joke)? I didn't hink so. Had he known that people would take what he said and parrot it in an effort to convince a bunch of useful idiots a lot of conspiracy theories....well he would have said anyway, just laid it on a little more thick...Ben always got a chuckle out of the UFO crowd (because he know what half of the things people were claiming ufo's were, lol)





new topics
top topics
 
10
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join