Most Remarkable Claim

Originally posted by shadow fax

Originally posted by Cygnific

Originally posted by elevatedone

That NASA airbrushes pictures of the moon.

[edit on 30-4-2007 by elevatedone]

You mind show the picture(s) that prove they are edited? There are so many threads with pictures here and never seen one that clearly showed an airbrushed original photograph.

If they were "clearly" airbrushed then they didnt do a good job, did they? One would almost assume that airbrushing a picture is done to cover something up, and (s)he who airbrushes it might benefit from not making it too obvious, right?

I'm sure there are multiple photo's of the same spots around made by either NASA,Russia, Europe or whoever else got there. I'm also sure that it's impossible to airbrush the same spots by different people in the same way. The reason why something would be airbrushed i dont know, maybe for make-up or hiding, who knows. And since nobody ever from Nasa proofing (i.e. show real photo's) he worked there and airbrushed photo's it will allways be quessing.

Ontopic: John Lear's most remarkable claim "The Soul Catcher" tobad only the airbrushers at Nasa and friends know about it.

Provable, duplicatable science is also known as knowledge. It makes the world go 'round. That's what prevents folks from putting jet fuel in a turboprop, because provable, duplicatable science says you'll crash.

If this world ran on conjecture, rather than solid knowledge, we'd all soon be extinct and recalled as a species of fools. Science is meant to describe our existance in a dependable context, and...like democracy, it's not perfect but it beats anything else we've got.

There...two cents worth (Canadian).

While i do agree with the premise of your point, I would also say that it misses the premise of John's apparent point.

It is true that you can call duplicatable science knowledge, for sure. But what of the "anomolies" that are ignored by "reputable" scientists everyday? You do realize that if you go in with a paper for peer review that points out tons of unexplainable phenomenon, it is likely to be ridiculed, right? So these anomolies get swept under the rug and lamely concealed.

Take UFO's or the Loch Ness Monster. Both of these things are reported and observed. Neither one of them investigated or explained by the government agencies who would study such things. I mean, Nessie is so obviously a pleiseosaur (sp) i can't believe that we would rather question its existence than to identify its living habits. Might I also remind you that this is parallel with two other sea creatures: the "extinct" celocamph (sp) and the "Krakon", or giant squid. Cryptozoology that is proven true and ignored, still, by much of science. Why get all excited over being proven wrong? I mean, i don't see many archaeologists running to "red hat" the find...wonder why they are so silent? Perhaps it provides a glimpse up the Emperors invisible cloak?

Let's discuss physics as well. Have you heard the terms "random" or "spontaneous emission"? Those are two terms that, once again, provide this peek up the Emperors invisible cloak. For example, read the following article (excerpted below):

en.wikipedia.org...

If the atom is in the excited state with energy E2, it may spontaneously decay into the ground state, with energy E1, releasing the difference in energies between the two states as a photon. The photon will have frequency ν and energy hν, given by:

I would posit that the use of terms and theories that not account unknown variables within the constructs of chaos, instead referring to them as "random" and "spontaneous" shows the ignorance and pretentiousness of science. I understand that we may not know for sure what causes it...but the very fact that you cannot explain it shows some sort of flaw in reasoning, from my perspective. This, to me, is a much contended concept surrounding science and requires some looking in to.

Further, I feel that the basic science behind our understanding could be flawed. Spectrometers, for example....isn't it a bit presumptive to assume that these devices work the way they are stated? Blue shift/red shift....another topic that I don't agree with (and there are myriad examples disproving the ability of red shift/blue shift to determine distance/speed). Hasn't anyone thought about the fact that the light, in its billion miles travel, went through some amount of change? How about the actual distances? Do we really have a clue? To me it seems as if we use a lot of presumption layered on top of presumption, building a house of cards.

Before you get to sure of yourself, and your science, remember that mankind has yet to "get it right" provably. Remember "spontaneous generation", the theory which stated that maggots and flies would just start to grow on meat left out for too long? Yeah...that was science, too.


I am not proposing that we ignore science. i am proposing, however, that much of it is laden with personal interest and is built on erroneous ideas. Einstein himself lamented the imperfection of his concepts, struggling with it until he died.

Tex, I can't disagree with your comments about anomalies. They underscore the fact that we don't know everything. In fact, I'm quite sure that there is a proper "Universal Weirdness Theory" out there, just waiting to be discovered, that will tie in all those oddities from ufos to ghosts to quantum mechanics.

But it will be the scientific process that does it. I have a modest archaeological background, and I have witnessed a major paradigm shift over the last decade with regard to the peopleing of the Americas. I've seen the nature of the peer review and the gradual acceptance...and it is still changing! But if something new is to supplant our present worldview, it's gotta be right.

The nature of science is to say "to the best of our knowledge, this is how the world goes round, and we will base our observations upon these assumptions untill something else can be proven to be the case." Change is turgid, but for all the right reasons.

You want fast science? Look up Thalidomide.

Might I remind you that Thalidomide is still in use even today...just obviously not with pregnant women. I knew a "Thalidomide baby" once while working in a state mental institution. She was a very interesting person, to say the least, but her independance was nothing short of inspiring.

Change in science needs to start with reviewing its current knowldgebase, see if a recalibration is needed. Much of it is built on science that, until recently, was disjointed worldwide.

There is a propensity of science to ignore that which it cannot explain. This, too, must stop. "What you cannot explain" is where the answers are.

Regarding archaeology...why is there so much gravity applied to carbon dating? It seems that, without a firm understanding of the things that can impact the carbon decay rate or provide false readings, the technology would be mostly useless (like 7 day weather forecasts). As well, why are "myths" overlooked instead of trying to discern what was being said?

Just seems like we don't put much effort into getting the whole truth...perhaps I am wrong.

Regarding the peer review process...i have a friend that is a physics professor at a university in Ohio. He recently had to find a new job at this university because the one he was employed at was not happy with his breaking with their preferred dogma. Since then, he hasn't had a single paper published and most of his contacts are afraid to talk to him openly.

Again, Tex, I won't dispute the existance of the ivory tower and how peer review can be used as a blunt instrument. Remember, for every reputation to be made by a new discovery, there are experts who are suddenly wrong. We know scientists are not only fallible, but political creatures as well.

As to Archaeology, there is a saying..."One date is no date." C14 is used along with physical provenience and a host of other factors. C14 is also limited to a block of circumstances where it is applicable. It isn't perfect. But where it works, it is one of our best tools. Scientists for obvious reasons, don't make a big deal of what they don't know...but I'll tell ya, the best ghost stories I ever heard were being swapped by a couple of archaeologists over lunch.

My point is simply that one can't decide to dismiss science and replace it with conjecture...and expect to keep the planes in the air.

That is true, Johnny. However, one must see the flaws in the system before declaring "It isn't possible!". You can say "It isn't probable", but to say it isn't "possible" is one heck of a supposition.

It might do some good to keep a point of reference in mind. If you asked someone who had never seen an airplane, they would assume that a trip could take days instead of hours. We only know what is possible within the frame of reference that we have.

[edit on 2-5-2007 by bigfatfurrytexan]

Tex, we'll agree to disagree on this one...there's just certain places I have to draw the line between the sci and the sci/fi.But I respect your opinion and appreciate the discussion.

Same here, Johnny.

I sometimes don't put things in the proper context to properly express my ideas. I am sorry.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Let's discuss physics as well. Have you heard the terms "random" or "spontaneous emission"? Those are two terms that, once again, provide this peek up the Emperors invisible cloak. For example, read the following article (excerpted below):

en.wikipedia.org...

If the atom is in the excited state with energy E2, it may spontaneously decay into the ground state, with energy E1, releasing the difference in energies between the two states as a photon. The photon will have frequency ν and energy hν, given by:

I would posit that the use of terms and theories that not account unknown variables within the constructs of chaos, instead referring to them as "random" and "spontaneous" shows the ignorance and pretentiousness of science.

No, it only shows your total ignorance of the basic principles of quantum physics! Randomness and unpredictability are inherent features of the "quantum world", and as such have been experimentally verified multiple times. You may read this article:

en.wikipedia.org...

I'm always appalled when a non-scientist interpretes his own lack of understanding as a failure of science itself!

Regards
yf

Originally posted by yfxxx
Randomness and unpredictability are inherent features of the "quantum world", and as such have been experimentally verified multiple times.

Ok, Mr. Cranky-pants...I'm not the go-to guy when it comes to physics because it contains numbers, which are evil in and of themselves...
However...if we're talking completely random, how are we using quantum science as a basis for computer chips....2+2+ a fish?

[edit on 2-5-2007 by JohnnyCanuck]

[edit on 2-5-2007 by JohnnyCanuck]

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
I would posit that the use of terms and theories that not account unknown variables within the constructs of chaos, instead referring to them as "random" and "spontaneous" shows the ignorance and pretentiousness of science.

Chaos is another thing entirly! The concept of chaos is not abot disorder, but rather a theretically infinite nuber of variables in a given situation.

Chaos is a seprate theory:

In mathematics and physics, chaos theory describes the behavior of certain nonlinear dynamical systems that under certain conditions exhibit dynamics that are sensitive to initial conditions (popularly referred to as the butterfly effect). As a result of this sensitivity, the behavior of chaotic systems appears to be random, because of an exponential growth of errors in the initial conditions. This happens even though these systems are deterministic in the sense that their future dynamics are well defined by their initial conditions, and there are no random elements involved. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.

en.wikipedia.org...

Don't confuse your scientific theories. I know you are trying to prove your understanding, but crossing theories doesn't help you.

Tim

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Ok, Mr. Cranky-pants...I'm not the go-to guy when it comes to physics because it contains numbers, which are evil in and of themselves

...
However...if we're talking completely random, how are we using quantum science as a basis for computer chips....2+2+ a fish?

*sigh* ... Did I say "completely random"? No. There are laws for the "uncertainties" in quantum theory. It's true that semiconductors work the way they do because of quantum physics. However, there is a really huge number of electrons in a semiconductor, and while a single electron may have some "random" behaviour, all of them taken together behave in a perfectly predictable way.

Anyway, I can't explain the basics quantum physics here ... especially not to a guy who says he's at odds with physics and numbers . In this case, you no better option than believing those who are good at physics and numbers.

Regards
yf

Originally posted by VType
Its strange that an influx of newbies here go right after John.
Go figure.

Well I have to say I'm very disappointed with most of you. Basically here's how I sum up this thread so far:

1) A couple of people actually tried to address the question and gave me some valuable information that I was looking for. I am new to this forum and I know almost nothing about John Lear, but I didn't have time to read every thread or do an extensive web search, which is why I asked the question in the first place. To those of you who actually tried to help, I thank you.

2) A personal attack against me, which is not only ridiculous (the classic "newbie hate"), but is also unfounded (re-read the question, there is no attack there, no one is "going after" anything except information, which as I recall is the whole point of this forum).

3) A classic thread-jacking. Loch Ness Monster? Coelacanth? Thalidomide? What in the holy hell does that have to do with anything?

For those of you that think scientists and the government or the majestic 12 or illuminati or your dog are out to poo-poo everything you say and sweep it under the rug, take a good long look at this thread and observe how people can take a simple question, distort it into a personal attack, then dodge the question and start ranting about whatever strikes them. I'm not even going to bother continuing the thread after this. If you're looking for credibility in the scientific world or anywhere else it matters, or simply for a rational dialog that could lead to valuable information-sharing or new breakthroughs, you need to start with critical thinking, reading comprehension, and a basic understanding of forensics (call it debate or logic, whatever). Everything else is a waste of time, and that includes much of this thread.

Originally posted by mtmaraca Well I have to say I'm very disappointed with most of you.

Call me paranoid, but I feel like I'm one of those thread hijackers that you refer to...

I was going to protest, but you know what? You're right. I took a simple discussion about which of John's stories generate the most appeal and started into a rant about applied truthiness. Our Mr. Lear provides a very succinct disclaimer to his posts, so not only should I cease taking him to task for what he has suggested...I should also assume that nobody necessarily takes it all to heart either.

Mind you, mtmaraca, he does tell us that his postings are meant to stimulate discussion...and that is what this thread has been doing. Hmmm...

[edit on 2-5-2007 by JohnnyCanuck]

I am sorry, MtMaraca...i didn't see you around and just followed the direction that the conversation was taking us. I apologize.

yfxxx...not sure what you refer to. The idea of science is order, structure. Randomness is not order, nor structure. A term like spontaneity would, to me, translate as "I really don't know what drives it".

All things are caused by something. We live in a cause and effect reality. How does something happen without a direct causation? Heisenberg aside, how does this really happen?

I would dispute your assertion. Much of my premise was formed while working with a physics professor who, unlike yourself, would readily admit that this science was flawed and that he was merely making do with the best model that he could at that time.

I know it is uncomfortable to have someone point out the flaws in the discipline that you hold so sacred. I do not mean to cause this discomfort. But there ARE issues that glare at us, and science is rife with elitism....

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
yfxxx...not sure what you refer to. The idea of science is order, structure. Randomness is not order, nor structure. A term like spontaneity would, to me, translate as "I really don't know what drives it".

All things are caused by something. We live in a cause and effect reality. How does something happen without a direct causation? Heisenberg aside, how does this really happen?

The established model of quantum mechanics (QM) indeed says that there is no "cause" for, say, the decay of a single radioactive atom. This is what makes QM a really tough philosophical problem, which hasn't been solved to this day. In QM, things do happen without direct causation. You may not like it, and in fact even Einstein didn't like it. But just because we don't like the way nature behaves, doesn't make it false.

In fact, physicists have gone to some lengths to produce QM models, where there are some hidden "causes" for all events. The trouble is, so far all of these models have been falsified by experiments. In fact, one particularly clever physicist has even claimed to have proven that it is impossible to find such "hidden" causes:

en.wikipedia.org...'s_theorem

However, the "Bell's Theorem" stuff is really complicated, and I admit I don't quite understand all the mathematics either. However, I're read about it in many books and it seems that a vast majority of physicists accepts it as proven by experiments. This would mean that in QM the principle that every single(!) event must have a direct "cause" does in fact not hold true.

I can't say if there are any "loop holes" left in Bell's Theorem. But they can't be very obvious, because otherwise someone would have pointed them out, and probably have got a Nobel Prize for this .

I would dispute your assertion. Much of my premise was formed while working with a physics professor who, unlike yourself, would readily admit that this science was flawed and that he was merely making do with the best model that he could at that time.

I know it is uncomfortable to have someone point out the flaws in the discipline that you hold so sacred.

There are flaws in our understanding of nature. But that doesn't mean that every theory is equally "flawed", and QM is actually by far the best of our theories. Some really remarkable, counter-intuitive and downright weird predictions of QM have been experimentally verified.

I do not mean to cause this discomfort. But there ARE issues that glare at us, and science is rife with elitism....

Yes. But so is "anti-science" which asserts that all scientists are closed-minded blockheads anyway .

Regards
yf

John's "Soul Catcher" antenae on the moon is my personal favourite for the most out there comment he has made. It's probably not his own personal theory or concept and I seem to think that it was sleeper's concept but none the less its pretty out there.

Originally posted by mtmaraca


Well I have to say I'm very disappointed with most of you. Basically here's how I sum up this thread so far:

1) A couple of people actually tried to address the question and gave me some valuable information that I was looking for. I am new to this forum and I know almost nothing about John Lear, but I didn't have time to read every thread or do an extensive web search, which is why I asked the question in the first place. To those of you who actually tried to help, I thank you.

With all due respect and it isn't just you, but geez I hate this attitude. Basically it is the McDonalds Principle "I want it now but I do not want to do anything to get it. Feed Me don't make me cook for myself"

If one isn't prepared to search and look up threads on a website then don't worry about as you obviously don't really care that much. This whole McDonalds Principle is so annoying and makes the poster look lazy and someone not to be taken seriously.

Do the leg work yourself not only will you learn something you may not waist the time of others who continually see the same threads all prefaced with "I dont know if this has been covered but I am really busy (LAZY) and don't have time (Cant be stuffed) to look this up, so could you do it do for me.

Originally posted by tkmelb

With all due respect and it isn't just you, but geez I hate this attitude. Basically it is the McDonalds Principle "I want it now but I do not want to do anything to get it. Feed Me don't make me cook for myself"

If you would read what I wrote instead of what you think I meant, you'll understand that this is not what I said at all. Nowhere did I say that I wanted all the information that is out there about John Lear, or anything else. Also I'm more than willing to read threads and webpages, and I've done that. I've already established an opinion about John Lear and his ideas, but of course I'm keeping an open mind regarding new things I learn, so that opinion is subject to change.

This thread was meant to get other peoples' opinions on what they consider remarkable and true. I happened to limit it to things John Lear has claimed since we all should know by now that he makes a wide range of claims that, if found to be true, would change the world as we know it. Also this forum happens to be dedicated to him. To me it was an interesting question of opinion, not an argument starter. If you notice, I didn't even respond to the substance of the opinions offered. I don't care if they are plausible to me or anyone else, I just want to know what other people think.

Now you've implied (or outright stated) that I am lazy and worthy of your loathing, and I contend I am neither. Re-read what I've wrote and decide for yourself who is right.

If i read things that John posts, i would say that he has said many, many really far out things. However, his signature provides a disclaimer, so i generally only count what he says in other sources as his "claims". He appears to think freely and openly, discounting items as they become more obsolete in his mind. Perhaps he just states the first thing that comes to his suspicious mind while typing in a thread? I do that sometimes.

The "soul catcher" thing seems to be just one such item...but i may be mistaken and i don't really read much of Johns stuff, yet. But the most remarkable thing to me is that there is oxygen on the Moon. If this one thing is true, everything comes apart. It is the lynch pin, both in his story and in NASA's credibility, along with the US Government and military.