It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

John Lear's Claims Of Civilizations on Most Planets

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

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

You don't think that it is more "enemy" like to attack people who differ in opinion with you? Honestly, i believe nothing. I think I have some ideas, and many of them come from reading Zorgon's research. Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.


Questioning outlandish claims by demanding solid evidence is not attacking. And if most of your ideas came from reading Zorgan's research, may I suggest reading a few space and astronomy books, followed by a couple of physical science books as well?


you speak like an elitist, that is for sure.


If being elite around here means having common sense, logic and reason...then yeah I guess I am.


Do you really think that the 'average person' is too dense to figure out that something fishy is going on out there? Heck, if you want to watch the news, occasionally they do polls on the subject. More Americans, it seems, believe in UFO's than God, as of late.


That's great. But has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I never said that the majority do not believe in UFO's. What I said is the average person will not discuss it seriously without a decent chuckle first due to the amount of shear silliness that the ufo community generates from within. You know, like 600 million people living on Venus, the moon's atmosphere, etc. These are things that even the average person lumps right into the same pot as Billy's ray gun photos (LOL) and then just stops looking into the whole ufo thing altogether, having figured to themselves that is is full of nutjobs and con-artists (and it is)


This closed minded attitude is what feeds the flock mentality of most humans

I have an open mind, just not open so much my brain falls out when I tilt my head causing me to accept John Lear's claims of civilizations on mosts planets (do I get points for using the thread title into a post?)




posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Do you really think that the 'average person' is too dense to figure out that something fishy is going on out there?

Well I consider myself to be an 'average person' and I dont think 'something fishy' is going on up there at all.


Heck, if you want to watch the news, occasionally they do polls on the subject. More Americans, it seems, believe in UFO's than God, as of late.


But one could say that 'America' is not the world, nor does it consist of what I call 'average people'
Most Americans have never even been out of the country or do not even possess a passport so have little understanding or comprehension what life in other countries is like let alone even consider the possibility of life on another planet or moon, unless their TV tells them




If you really want to see "disclosure", then you should stop being so mean to people who have differing viewpoints.

Theres another thing I have a problem with. What is this 'disclosure' and what makes you think there is anything to disclose?




Then there are folks like Zorgon, who spend their time finding information while ona personal quest, and are kind enough to share their findings with us. Just remember the key word: SHARE. If you don't want to share, then don't....but be polite. Can't be that hard, right?



People are polite but when someone continually posts pictures with their personal interpretation of habitations or secret space staions in an attempt to indoctrinate others into their way of thinking, some of us like to stand out and put OUR views forwards that these wonderfull picures and tales of wonderment are nothing but total speculation and nothing more.
Simply because there are a lot of fuzzy pictures and lots of speculations doesnt make it any more real or believeable, it remains nothing more than pure speculation and supposition



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 10:44 AM
link   
I'd swear I had a post early in this thread expressing my opinion that J. Lear really didn't believe in this stuff....its just something fun to be involved in, provides him some notoriety, and even gets him some airtime every now and then. There's even a reply from IgnoreTheFacts to the very post I'm thinking about.

I find it disturbing that the post is missing.

With that out of the way.......earlier in the thread, zorgon challenged someone to provide an explanation for why an "aerobraking" device was designed into a lunar craft. Well, someone did exactly that with a small excerpt describing its use for re-entry into Earth's atmosphere. zorgon, you made a comment about how the poster had 'conveniently' used a small portion of text to support his view. Here's what you said;


However, as is the case with most skeptics... the reading is selective, and as his been numerously pointed out to us, you only quote the portion to suit your argument. LOL Fair enough we all do that...


He wasn't just quoting that to suit an argument. It answered a specific question. I personally feel he didn't need to post any more....the point had been made. What I really noticed though, is how you dropped it like a hot potato.....your demands that skeptics view the 'evidence' seems like lip-service when evidence is presented that you ignore. I genuinely expected you to say something like, "I'll be darned, so that's why it has an aerobraking device",

I know that's just one small example.....but the point is, with that one short line the poster totally refuted your insinuation that atmospheric braking was needed on the moon. And you did exactly what you're accusing skeptics of doing. In fact, I think you ignored evidence that was clearer and more conclusive than what you offer.



[edit on 21-9-2007 by MrPenny]



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrPenny
I know that's just one small example.....but the point is, with that one short line the poster totally refuted your insinuation that atmospheric braking was needed on the moon. And you did exactly what you're accusing skeptics of doing. In fact, I think you ignored evidence that was clearer and more conclusive than what you offer.

That's just Zorgon's usual style. Also in this thread, he tried to present a radar image of Venus as evidence that Venus' sky is "crystal clear". When I pointed out in this post, that his argument is nonsense, because the whole point of a radar imager is to look through the clouds, I didn't get any reply whatsoever (let alone a rebuttal of my point).

Add to this the fact, that Zorgon interprets each and every study, proposal, patent, outlook, speculation etc. as hard evidence that the things described therein already exist, and it's no surprise that Zorgon has always tons of pseudo-evidence to present, and no need to comment on his blunders.

In fact, I think that Zorgon harms his own agenda that way. Even if he ever uncovers some sort of cover-up or data hiding within "official" channels (but surely not on the "Grand Conspiracy" scale that he thinks
!), this will be completely drowned by all the other obvious rubbish and leaping to unfounded conclusions.

Regards
yf



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Hi all,
going to stop lurking now and add my two pennys worth.
I for one hope that Mr Lear is at least partly right in what he re-tells to us.
If we are the best/only life form on the only habitable planet in this huge universe then whoever or whatever created us must be hiding in a dark closet and pretending that it wasn't them that started this creation game.

They did there best to create a sentient intelligent biological lifeform,gave us a nice place to live and look what we've done to the place!!
I for one do believe that some other planets are habitable and I think they are bringing the kids here to show them what happens when you mess with genetics.
Anyways just my thoughts.



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrPennyyour demands that skeptics view the 'evidence' seems like lip-service when evidence is presented that you ignore. I genuinely expected you to say something like, "I'll be darned, so that's why it has an aerobraking device",


LOL John might have said "I'll be darned, so that's why it has an aerobraking device"

And I did say I wouldn't post here anymore but hey gotta check in once in a while...


Seems I did not make myself clear... oh well to late now... but the very fact that you 'skeptics' admit that the aerobraking device is as you say used for Earth atmosphere braking as it stops in LEO...

means that you accept the craft exists... If you claim the braking system is real then so must be the craft that HAS those brakes...

But I can see I am wasting my breath in here




posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
but the very fact that you 'skeptics' admit that the aerobraking device is as you say used for Earth atmosphere braking as it stops in LEO...

means that you accept the craft exists... If you claim the braking system is real then so must be the craft that HAS those brakes...


Wow zorgon. You've totally skewed what was said. I don't recall anyone writing to "claim the braking system is real". Again, it was simply to establish why an atmospheric braking system was designed into this craft. It is not a case of "as you say used for Earth atmosphere braking". The referenced text says that zorgon.

Shame on you. The above quote is a perfect example of a poorly reasoned and illogical argument.

[edit on 22-9-2007 by MrPenny]



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Originally posted by Karnos



then whoever or whatever created us must be hiding in a dark closet and pretending that it wasn't them that started this creation game.



No use looking in the closet, try under your feet instead!!

Taken from Reptoids.com :

'' In Mr Sagan's ( Dr Carl Sagan ) aptly named book The Dragons of Eden, it is emphasised that in our search for the evolution of human intelligence, it is extremely important that we do not ignore the most ancient part of the human brain upon which all other segments are but additions. According to the neuroanatomist Paul MacLean, that ancient area of the ''triune'' brain, is driven by another prehistoric region that some neuroanatomists call the R-Complex or the Reptillian-Complex because we share this particular structure of the brain with reptiles....

MacLean also states that the R-Complex plays an important role in the aggressive behaviour, territoriality, ritualism and establishment of social hierachies.........

...and as Mr Sagan himself eloquently phrases it...It does no good whatsoever to ignore the reptillian component of human nature, particularly our ritualistic and hierarchical behaviour.

Throughout The Dragons of Eden, one can find other subtle hints as to his true knowledge of our genetic connection with the reptillian beings that have played an important role in our species existence....

We are more physically and mentally connected to reptiles than previously understood, so their interest in us is justified when one realises that we may be, as myth and legends have related, actual reptillian genetic offspring.''

Interesting eh? That we descend from reptillians and the Garden of Eden is actually in the inner Earth. This could be why disclosure is so difficult for the PTB.



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 08:53 PM
link   
TextHi all. Ive enjoyed this thread very much and usually just sit back and absorb what is said and presented. Zorgon, I admire your passion and dedication of your cause and especially how you back up what you say! One has to admit that with all the photos,govt documents, leaks,mistakes and entire entries blacked out in FOIA releases...There is definately something going on that the general public is not privy too. No question about it!!
Literally thousands of ufo pics,witnesses etc.. It cant all be lies and mass histeria or mass hypnotic events. I think it about it like this..EVERYTHING we know about our solar system and beyond has been told to us mostly in the form of books. It also filters down to the public through news releases or through TV and the internet. This is our only window to this knowledge..What is "told" to us by print or pictures.
Who is to say for sure that the moon devoid of an atmosphere or ar
tifacts..past or present.Or that Venus is really 800 degrees F? Maybe it is not and has a similiar atmosphere like ours and its own kind of life forms.
How about Mars for example? We have seen (at least what we believe to be true) concrete geological evidence of ancient oceans and temperate climates. Why then could there not have been eons of lifeforms there?_javascript:icon('
')
_javascript:icon('
')
I believe that outside our shell ie earth, there a vast ocean beyond that is teeming with life of all kinds.We at the moment are merely a small group of bugs floating on a piece of driftwood in this "ocean" so nearsighted that we cannot see what is all around us.



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by laserman-x
Zorgon, I admire your passion and dedication of your cause and especially how you back up what you say!


Then you have obviously not been reading this thread, or skipped a lot of posts.

I think it about it like this..EVERYTHING we know about our solar system and beyond has been told to us mostly in the form of books. It also filters down to the public through news releases or through TV and the internet. This is our only window to this knowledge..What is "told" to us by print or pictures.


Speak for yourself. Some of us actually get up from our computer, and participate in research and astronomy on a regular basis. Taking what we learn and applying it in order to predict (reliably so) the outcome of common, everyday things is started to become more and more unusual.


Who is to say for sure that the moon devoid of an atmosphere


Thousands of scientists, a few astronauts, multiple countries probes, things that...i don't know.....COLLECT DATA FROM THE ACTUAL MOON. But then again, it's all this data against a few guys on the internet that just come out and insist the moon has an atmosphere, and anyone who challenges them is a fool. It's the other way around.


Or that Venus is really 800 degrees F? Maybe it is not and has a similiar atmosphere like ours and its own kind of life forms.


Can you do some research for me? I'm too lazy and you might learn something. Can you describe the several ways in which scientists can determine the surface temperature on a planet? You will learn something in your quest for understanding that you will not receive here if I just blurt it out.



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
Thousands of scientists, a few astronauts, multiple countries probes, things that...i don't know.....COLLECT DATA FROM THE ACTUAL MOON. But then again, it's all this data against a few guys on the internet that just come out and insist the moon has an atmosphere, and anyone who challenges them is a fool. It's the other way around.


Nah we don't call people who challenge us 'fools'. Don't need to they do a fine job themselves...
They always ignore the facts...

Look whether or not the Moon has an atmosphere is NOT IN QUESTION, the only point of debate is HOW MUCH

NASA says the Moon has an Atmosphere, and even a list of components



Lunar Atmosphere

Estimated Composition (particles per cubic cm):
Helium 4 (4He) - 40,000 ; Neon 20 (20Ne) - 40,000 ; Hydrogen (H2) - 35,000
Argon 40 (40Ar) - 30,000 ; Neon 22 (22Ne) - 5,000 ; Argon 36 (36Ar) - 2,000
Methane - 1000 ; Ammonia - 1000 ; Carbon Dioxide (CO2) - 1000
Trace Oxygen (O+), Aluminum (Al+), Silicon (Si+)
Possible Phosphorus (P+), Sodium (Na+), Magnesium (Mg+)

Composition of the tenuous lunar atmosphere is [b[poorly known and variable, these are estimates of the upper limits of the nighttime ambient atmosphere composition. Daytime levels were difficult to measure due to heating and outgassing of Apollo surface experiments.


nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

So I guess that makes NASA one of the few guys on the internet huh?

The Smithsonian believes the Moon has an atmosphere... So does Boston University... You can order the paper from the Smithsonian



Title: The Lunar Sodium Atmosphere: A Study as Observed Through Four Lunar Eclipses
Authors: Morrill, A. L.; Mendillo, M.; Baumgardner, J.
Affiliation: AA(Boston University), AB(Boston University), AC(Boston University)
Publication: American Astronomical Society, DPS meeting #29, #13.10; Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 29, p.987
Publication Date: 07/1997
Origin: AAS
Abstract Copyright: (c) 1997: American Astronomical Society

Abstract

The Moon's sodium atmosphere has been imaged during four lunar eclipses: November 29, 1993, April 2, 1996, September 27, 1996, and March 24, 1997, using a coronagraph type system at the Boston University four inch telescope located at the McDonald Observatory, TX, and at La Palma, Canary Islands. The Moon is imaged with a 5893A filter with a FWHP of 16A to include the sodium D1 and D2 lines. The eclipse condition provides the opportunity to observe the faint lunar atmosphere when the bright disk of the Moon is within the umbra and penumbra greatly reducing the scattered light in the system. In all four cases, the sodium atmosphere was imaged out to radial distances of 10 lunar radii. The brightness patterns were essentially uniform in azimuth and exhibited a radial decay far more gradual than seen at sub-solar radial distances at quarter Moon. While some variability appears among the four data sets, the large scale morphology under eclipse conditions was remarkably constant during the 1993 to 1997 events. This implies a steady source of sodium at times of full Moon.


Smithsonian/Harvard/Boston U

More "Lunatics" saying the Moon has an atmosphere...

Our atmosphere looks blue because of water vapor... the Moon has sodium, but no water vapor... so this could well be what gives the Moon that lovely saffron color that Howard Menger saw


The thing that gets me about certain skeptics is that you guys accuse us of making wild speculative statements.. but I just showed you four astute organizations that are well respected that not only state the moon has an atmosphere, but have made attempts to measure it.

And one of them is NASA and they admit in writing that the "lunar atmosphere is poorly known and variable" and "daytime levels were difficult to measure"

You guys can 'ignore the facts' all you want.. it won't change the fact that the Moon has an atmosphere... Instead of lurking about in here pouncing on everything we present, maybe you should try a little research and keep up with the facts... that is how one 'denies ignorance'

And personally I think most at ATS are intelligent enough to follow our presentations which are provide with facts from official sources to back them up and make up their own minds.




posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 12:09 PM
link   
zorgon says:
"Nah we don't call people who challenge us 'fools'. Don't need to they do a fine job themselves... They always ignore the facts... "

How can we ignore the facts when, as yet there have been no facts published by people here?

Suppositions, assumptions, guesses but unfortunately no facts.

We'll keep waiting though. One day you might surprise us.



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


And I've said several times in this thread, that the moon can and probably does have a micro atmosphere, but NOTHING like the claims you guys have made about the moon's atmosphere. Don't back up from your "breathable" atmosphere claims John has made. Come on, seriously. Nice try to switch and twist.



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by yfxxx
That's just Zorgon's usual style. Also in this thread, he tried to present a radar image of Venus as evidence that Venus' sky is "crystal clear".


Hmmm well since Magellan only took radar images... (according to NASA) and I clearly linked you to the original source... it seems silly to say to tried to hide that fact...

But your right... its my style... and from what I see its well received by most here at ATS...

As to that image of Venus... it doesn't look at all like the other radar images and what you call a 'flaw' in the film, many others including my super skeptical wife, see a vapor trail with a shadow... so perhaps it is not a Radar image...
Either way it sure doesn't show that BRIGHT ORANGE color that NASA uses to tint all their images from Venus to give the impression that the surface is all molten lava...

NASA prefers images of Venus that look like this...



I prefer to look at images of Venus WITHOUT the ADDED orange tint that look like this...



University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR), University of Michigan



I didn't get any reply whatsoever (let alone a rebuttal of my point).


You didn't get a reply simply because unlike those that contribute little to the posts here other than constantly repeating "we only show fuzzy pictures" and "we have no evidence" while ignoring everything we show in documentation, I have things to do simply do not have the time to read every thread and every post.

It took me Jack and others over a week to put together the data and sources for the ISS 'International Space Supercenter" shopping mall presentation, three days to create and edit the website support page and 1 day to transfer and recode it to put into the posts...

So forgive me if I don't immediately respond to your posts. Some of us have a life




Add to this the fact, that Zorgon interprets each and every study, proposal, patent, outlook, speculation etc. as hard evidence that the things described therein already exist, and it's no surprise that Zorgon has always tons of pseudo-evidence to present, and no need to comment on his blunders.


LOL I guess I am not it the room huh? The point is at least I am LOOKING at patents and official documents etc to follow a trail.



In fact, I think that Zorgon harms his own agenda that way. Even if he ever uncovers some sort of cover-up or data hiding within "official" channels (but surely not on the "Grand Conspiracy" scale that he thinks
!), this will be completely drowned by all the other obvious rubbish and leaping to unfounded conclusions.


Now see? You accuse me of having an 'agenda' and 'jumping to conclusions' yet I have repeatedly said I haven't reached a conclusion yet. I began this quest a little over a year ago and it is just that, a quest. And along the way I have met many interesting people that share the quest, and together we are presenting and sharing freely what we find...

Are we correct in everything? Of course not... but as we assemble the puzzle we look for clues and pieces... some do not fit, so are discarded...

Do I make mistakes?... surely, I am not perfect... and late at night it is easy to miss something... that is why I created the website... so I can store the data and go back and make corrections as needed...

This data base is now huge, with contributions by many at all levels, and is freely available to anyone.

Why do I do this? Because it is interesting to myself and many others... If I were to get a balance out and look at supporters versus 'hard core skeptics'
well.... I can count the 'hard core skeptics' on my hands...

And since I started I have gathered interest from some ummm amazing quarters... the things they tell me give me the confidence to continue and KNOW I am on the right track...

You say you are a physicist... and you disagree with most everthing we present

Well I have two physicists on my email list that think otherwise, one in the nuclear fission dept. of MIT and one at Lawrence Livermore national Laboratories... I had the pleasure of meeting both at the UFO Expo in San Jose... The Livermore gentleman actually was showing a person who did not see the mining operation where the artifacts were on the Copernicus poster... That was an interesting moment


I guess you should be worried that 'lunatics' hold such high positions
. BTW it was the MIT Doctor who explained to both John and myself (and gave us the name) Cherenkov radiation and described in detail how it can be related to Aristarchus Crater

So do I listen to your science? or theirs? LOL Nothing personal but that is a no brainer




[edit on 23-9-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 12:54 PM
link   
zorgon says:

"Why do I do this? Because it is interesting to myself and many others... If I were to get a balance out and look at supporters versus 'hard core skeptics' well.... I can count the 'hard core skeptics' on my hands... "

Oh dear youve fallen into the silliest trap ever.
Please dont think that silence equates to acceptance or proof of non scepticism. There are many many people I suspect, that simply dont respond to this and the moon threads because they accept the futility of arguing with 'want to believe...must believe' people like ypurself and others who read things into geography and other curiosities.

There is too much common sense and logic out there that doesnt question everything as a conspiracy as some do.

As some other person said on some thread or another,
Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence and that speaks pages in respect of sceptics who simply cant be bothered arguing the toss with people who see reds under the bed, or mines on the moon, or even secret space stations.



[edit on 23/9/07 by Chorlton]



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chorlton
How can we ignore the facts when, as yet there have been no facts published by people here?
Suppositions, assumptions, guesses but unfortunately no facts.


By simply READING what is POSTED Like the one you just quoted me from about the atmosphere...

You have told me before you have no desire to read what we link to... so how do you expect to know the facts? Is it your learned position that those facts I posted from NASA Smithsonian and Boston U are lies?

You guys scream for facts and documentation, completely ignore them when presented, and continue your blind rhetoric about "you don't see any facts", then wonder why I don't waste my time to respond immediately

:shk:

As I said... we don't have to call anyone a fool...



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 01:01 PM
link   
The problem is Zorgon, you have a nasty habit of mixing up stated facts with lots of your suppositions and wrongly linking them which I why I simply dont bother reading all of your stuff.

Much of it is laughable, look at your claims of a secret space station, TONS of stuff but not one scrapof evidence to back up your allegations.

Maybe when you make a post you could put
FACT for any factual content in the post and
SUPPOSITION when it contains that and then maybe
MIXED FACT AND SUPPOSITION DESIGNED TO CONFUSE on some others



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Zorgon, I missed the 600 million people and the huge cities in that Venus picture you showed us?!? Since you have such excellent imaging of Venus, and an understanding about it's culture that maybe only John can fully share with you, could you go out of your way to post your pictures of the Venus society?

I think it's funny that you and John make all these claims of people living on Venus, but yet the only picture you pull out of your ass in an attempt to dog on NASA shows NOTHING that would convince anyone with half a brain that John's claims are remotely possible.

Please, prove me wrong and shut me up, it's really that simple. Get rid of all your babbling, all your suppositions, and all your cult like followers who don't understand science or technology (but back you up 100% percent on the foolish claims you all make)

Just the facts. Come on, what do you have to worry about? Oh wait, maybe your facts require a little creative interpretation...maybe we need to squint our eyes a little bit......draw some pictures in the clouds......ignore Occam's razor....that sort of thing?

Put up, or shut up. This thread has gone on long enough without anything convincing from John's side of the fence. We have science and technology on our side. You have bits and pieces of science and technology on your side (and you know darn well what I mean)

[edit on 23-9-2007 by IgnoreTheFacts]

[edit on 23-9-2007 by IgnoreTheFacts]



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Either way it sure doesn't show that BRIGHT ORANGE color that NASA uses to tint all their images from Venus to give the impression that the surface is all molten lava...

Radar images don't contain color information. NASA can can use any color they like (including hues of orange, black and white, etc.) - deal with it!



Are we correct in everything? Of course not... but as we assemble the puzzle we look for clues and pieces... some do not fit, so are discarded...

"some do not fit, so are discarded" ... Thanks, I couldn't have said it better
. You just discribed your own "confirmation bias" very well! But don't worry - confirmation bias is tricky to handle, and better scientists than you fell for it.


Why do I do this? Because it is interesting to myself and many others... If I were to get a balance out and look at supporters versus 'hard core skeptics'
well.... I can count the 'hard core skeptics' on my hands...

Chorlton has already addressed this point
.


You say you are a physicist... and you disagree with most everthing we present

Well I have two physicists on my email list that think otherwise, one in the nuclear fission dept. of MIT and one at Lawrence Livermore national Laboratories... I had the pleasure of meeting both at the UFO Expo in San Jose... The Livermore gentleman actually was showing a person who did not see the mining operation where the artifacts were on the Copernicus poster... That was an interesting moment


I guess you should be worried that 'lunatics' hold such high positions
. BTW it was the MIT Doctor who explained to both John and myself (and gave us the name) Cherenkov radiation and described in detail how it can be related to Aristarchus Crater

I sense "jumps to conclusions" again
. I don't know, what your MIT doctor told you about Cherenkov radiation and Aristarchus. But if you ask a physicist about "blue glow" and "nuclear technology", they will of course come up with Cherenkov radiation as a possible explanation. I would be somewhat surprised, if the MIT doctor actually believed there is a nuclear reactor in Aristarchus crater.

Anyway, I have first hand experience (remember when I explained some of the physics of wormholes to you
? ) how you can twist any words of a scientist to fit into your conspiracy theories. Who knows what the MIT guy really thought about your moon claims!


So do I listen to your science? or theirs? LOL Nothing personal but that is a no brainer

I know it is. Because of your confirmation bias, you discard everything that "doesn't fit". This would of course include my comments.

Regards
yf



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Life is abundant at levels of existance far above our level and thus all around us. Science cannot prove or disprove what it does not understand nor what it cannot measure due to limited technology.

It is difficult to explain what you yourself do not fully understand but you have seen and experienced. Those people here making demands have no right to do so and are only limiting knowledge transfer and learning.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join