Martians

Thanks for the post mecheng.

I am an alien skeptic. I'm an engineer who needs concrete, in-your-face proof.

That is word for word what Bob Lazar told me in the summer of 1988.

Could you tell me if you know why they simply don't just land in the white house front lawn and announce who they are rather than keeping us in the dark?

The short answer is earth is a farm for human souls. They raise, grow, nuture and harvest them. They don't want us to know that. Its a secret.

Also, if they are keeping themselves hidden from us, do you know if and when they might decide to let us in on their existance?

Very gradually they will make us aware of their existence. Don't know what that time period is but more like in the next 3 or 4 generations. Right now we think that we are the only ones in this solar system when in fact EVERY planet is inhabited with people much like ourselves. But its a secret. And....all of the above are opinions.

Originally posted by kolo_heights
Apologies to sabotage your question but the reasons for them not revealing themselves are rather prominant:

No offense, but I was hoping John could answer me. Without going off on a tangent and trying to address each of your points, IMO those are all your own speculations. I happen to disagree with many of your points. I was hoping someone with more 'direct' contacts like John could address those questions. But thanks anyway (again, I'm not trying to be a jerk).

So John, are you of the opinion that the "mars records" and Michael Relfe are legitimate?

Thanks John!

Originally posted by johnlear
The short answer is earth is a farm for human souls. They raise, grow, nuture and harvest them. They don't want us to know that. Its a secret.

For evil or somehow good? Do you know if and how Jesus Christ fits into this picture?

Don't know what that time period is but more like in the next 3 or 4 generations.

Bummer! I had a gut feeling, based on current events, that it might happen much sooner. Possibly within the next 5-10 years.

Originally posted by jra
In your opinion... which means what? Not trying to be offensive or insulting. But speculation about something that no one here has witnessed first hand is somewhat meaningless. In my opinion.

Assuming no one has witnessed it first hand is in fact offensive and insulting considering how you can not prove that it did not happen. Your opinion is far more worthless than his is but that is apparently not stopping you from commenting....

If those are the same pyramids I remember looking at, they'd have to be the worst ones i've ever seen. Calling them a pyramid is a stretch.

How you can not have noticed them for the pyramids they are is what is very interesting. How much time have you spent and what exactly convinced you that they are somehow 'natural'? Do you know who Tom van Flandern is and what he has to say about the artificiality of Cydonia region? Give the rest of us a break while you do some actual research.

It was last year, not a few years ago. There is this interesting phenomena called "wind", it tends to cause small particles, like dust, to move.

Well i don't think your opinions are worth his attention so i guess i will help out and return your sarcasm's with interest.

Using footage from Alternative 3 isn't exactly credible in my opinion.

Once again a opinion i do not much care for now that you have proven how much respect you show others doing the same.

But the Martian sky appears as a brownish/yellow colour, something like butterscotch, due to the mineral 'limonite' that is suspended in the atmosphere from all the dust storms.

Prove it.

Since the particles are a reddish brown in colour, they tend to absorb blue light, rather than reflect it and the remaining wavelgths are scattered.

The very first picture we ever got back from the surface of Mars showed a clear blue sky.

If the atmosphere was clean of these dust particles the sky would be blue, although i'd assume it would be a darker blue due to the thinness of the atmosphere.

Pre NASA the atmospheric pressure was always assumed to be maybe ten times less by scientist until NASA for some inexplicable reason decided to make it so very low. Try prove the atmospheric pressure is in fact as low as NASA suggests.

Now there are times where there arn't dust storms on Mars and i'm sure some of the dust will settle.

Our very first picture showed no dust suspension. Luck ?

This would probably affect the colour of the sky a bit, probably making it a bit of a yellowish green (if enough dust settles).

Only after NASA tweaked their instruments....

There are also times when there are clouds of very small dust particles that cause the Martian sunsets to be blue.

Yawn.

I don't understand the reason for people to believe that NASA would edit the colour of the sky on purpose. What would be the point in doing this?

If you have never thought of why then you have done no thinking at all. Sagan's words as the first picture from Mars came on screen; " It looks like Arizona". The moment they admit that the pressure on Mars is not all that low, that the sky is blue, that water still flows there , that there is current biological activity suddenly people it would be very hard to tell people that Cydonia is in 'only some kind of optical illusion'. If your protecting the town gate do you let the first few invaders in cause they wont be able to take they city on their own? Go think about it and stop pretending you have knowledge enough to treat your seniors the way you have done so far.

Want to take a chance on any of these not being the facts i am suggesting they are? Feel free.

Stellar

[edit on 16-6-2006 by StellarX]

So, jra has to "prove" what he says but nobody else does?

I'm not supporting him but you are being a bit hypocritical stellar.

Originally posted by jbondo
Well, I thought this was going to be another "nutjob" thread but as it turns out it's not too bad. Although it's getting a little ‘out there’ now.

Define 'out there' in terms that do not involve your own ignorance of the matter.

Getting back to John:
John, I just don’t understand

Well if you 'do not understand' why make that HIS problem? Do you not see that is YOUR problem for you to address and solve?

how you could know what a "Martian" looks like having never been there or seen an alien as you've stated yourself.

He is a human being ( let's assume at least) with 60 + years of experience ' on it' so he has had time to decide who to trust and when. If you do not understand how the process works that's once again strictly 'not his problem'.

Finally, I find much of what you say level headed and accurate but I also get that you may be a little left of center.

Define ' left of center' and tell us all what you consider 'level headed and accurate' in terms that has nothing to do with his opinions not agreeing with yours.

While I see nothing wrong with being a bit abnormal, some of the things you claim are way out there.

So was the view that the Earth was flat long ago. I imagine they had people like you around at the time?

Could you elaborate on these "opinions" you have about life on Mars?

I think i can cover that area rather well as your once again not being very specific with the term 'life'.

Yes, that is plausible but you would think there would be structures on the surface such as windmills or solar collectors or docking ports or mining equipment or anything for that matter.

If you make a hundred assumptions ,based on ignorance of alternatives ,then this is a valid question. Did you for one moment think that they might use alternative means of energy generation, transportation or that mining becomes completely dumb when you can tap energy from the vacuum in any quantity with minimal resource investment?

I have not seen anything in Mars pics to prove artificial structure on the surface of that planet.

Well once again i must apologise for not considering your opinion worth much considering who's i can work with instead.

Heck, even storage tanks would make sense to save space in the caverns. I do believe there is water inside that rock somewhere and possibly flowing subterraneous rivers.

Well why is it you will believe anything YOU fancy but treat the opinions of others with such little respect? Odd....

Maybe there are aliens on/in Mars but John talks matter of factly and even describes the Martian being.

So maybe he is less ignorant than you clearly are? Do you imagine that being possible or do you already consider yourself well enough informed to shoot down the ideas of people so much your senior without any proof? Feel free to direct me to the 'proof' i must have missed.

So, jra has to "prove" what he says but nobody else does?

Well he wont be able to while i can back everything i say ( as he would know had he studied the topic) with more information most enjoy seeing.

I'm not supporting him but you are being a bit hypocritical stellar.

Well i guess you do not know me or how i go about the business so i suggest you do some research ( Yes, research ; OMG) before you comment on what i have or will do.

Stellar

Originally posted by Darkmind
Mars is too small for any kind of life similar to us to develop.

Who says the current life on Mars came from there? Ever read anything by Van Flandern ?

If life did start out there when the planet had a more temperate atmosphere then it would not have been anything like life on Earth.

Why on Earth ( pun intended) not?

We are talking about two totally different ecologies here, with different evolutionary pressures.

Meaning your assuming that life originates on each planet independently? Ever heard of the Cambrian explosion? Where is the true human progenitor? Where did the Sumerian civilization ( the origin of so called "western civilization") come from? Your assuming far too much to make the claims you are.

The human body is the result of the normal evolutionary compromises.

There is no such thing.

Martians, if they existed, would be the result of DIFFERENT evolutionary compromises.

We don't know where the builders of Martian cities came from .....

But all this is fruitless, because Mars is now sadly rather dead.

Current methane releases proves otherwise.

The seas are gone, evaporated or frozen over.

We have pictures strongly indicative of standing water.

The atmosphere has thinned into pinkness.

Believing NASA is a very bad idea as trying to prove that claim will teach you.

Vulcanology has ceased. So has any plate tectonics.

Were pretty much taking NASA's ( and other's ) word for that but since methane is still being produced there is either active geological processes or biological activity.

The only Martians are now either fossils or microbes.

We know there are fossils and informed parties ( myself included ) are now assuming biological activity on quite a large scale considering the methane concentrations. Feel free to look at some of my previous posts on topic.

Stellar

Originally posted by kolo_heights
It seems rather far-fetched, but perhaps Mars rather then a old alien planet could perhaps be an anchestoral planet, where we as humans originated from?

Guess what the Plato the pyramids are constructed on is called ?

Thus we colonised Earth due to the degredation of Mars (be it natural or through human interventation - as can be slowly be seen on Earth)

Check out Tom van Flanderns work describing why this solar system is , and always was, a rather violent place.

It's interesting to think that rather then seaching for alien life on mars, we possibly are simply studying and analysing our anchestors.

Thats enough day-dreaming for now

You would probably be surprised to find out how much information there is to be found that proves what your suggesting here is not at all far fetched.

Stellar

Originally posted by laiguana
Mars could have had life on it at some point...I dunno about now...

We have to assume it did since we can not otherwise explain the methane emissions we have observed.

Stellar

Originally posted by Springer
Here is a great piece of sceintific method done by one of our own experts, the great Kano...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This thread is well worth reading on the subject you folks are debating. The title says it all and the irrefutable data is in there.

Springer...

Irrefutable? One picture refutes all Kano's 'work' and it shows how data can be manipulated to 'prove' any point of the author's choosing. Since i have not looked at Kano's other work i will assume his conclusions were based on what he believes and not what he wants us to believe.

Stellar

So stellar, are you John's personal lackey or something?

I don't remember asking you anything at all. I merely pointed out that you were being hypocritical, which you were. I didn't really notice where you were able to refute this in your ranting. But of course I could never compete with a guy that breaks every post down into bite size portions for the purpose of showing how superior he is and in a caustic and deprecating manner no less.

I kinda get the impression that you feed off of insulting and berating others. You, by your modus operandi most assuredly must know your stuff. I've seen people on other boards that use this method to attack, ridiculing those that don't follow their line of thinking. In most cases it works, mainly because the long winded nature of this style tends to just go on forever and people just get bored and leave.

See what I'm doing right now is splitting my post up into those little bite size chunks to help you out a little when you attempt to rip me apart again.

I'm sorry if someone stole the surprise out of your cereal this morning. Could I make you feel better if I complemented you on your obviously aggressive and deranged attitude?

You obviously can't take a little critiquing and I usually don’t even respond to rambling such as yours but I’m feeling a bit spunky today.

Am I getting warm here?

Originally posted by johnlear
Thanks for your opinion on global warming. I''m sure that you must be aware that the incidents about the polar cap and statistics you provide span and are representative of less than 20 years in 5 billion? Hello? Hello? "Clueless?' It's for you.

So are you saying that global warming is occuring technically, but it not due to the reasons we are being told?

IE: It is a naturally occuring "phenomenon" that happens every so often?

Edit: spelling



[edit on 6/16/2006 by pstiffy]

I guess johnlear can sign off now. StellarX obviously have this topic well covered. I think.

StellarX, I won't dispute the possibility of standing water, methane emissions, higher than realized atmospheric pressure, etc, etc,.....but you cannot show me a single item of evidence that supports the theory that intelligent beings are now living, or have ever lived on Mars. In fact, there is nothing but hypothesis that microbes are existing on Mars.

Originally posted by StellarX
Assuming no one has witnessed it first hand is in fact offensive and insulting considering how you can not prove that it did not happen. Your opinion is far more worthless than his is but that is apparently not stopping you from commenting....

Firstly he said a page or so back that he hasn't seen the Aliens, he was just told by his informant that's what they look like. Before that, when I wrote my reply, it seemed like Mr. Lear was just making a wild assumtion about what they look liked. If he had said "I was told this is what they look like..." then my reply would have been a lot different. Before it just sounded like wild speculation pulled out of thin air.

Secondly one can't prove a negative.

How you can not have noticed them for the pyramids they are is what is very interesting. How much time have you spent and what exactly convinced you that they are somehow 'natural'? Do you know who Tom van Flandern is and what he has to say about the artificiality of Cydonia region? Give the rest of us a break while you do some actual research.

If those really are pyramids, then they are rather pourly constructed. They look rather uneven and nowhere near the quality of those in Egypt.

The very first picture we ever got back from the surface of Mars showed a clear blue sky.

Was it a false colour images or an approximate true colour image? There are dozens of false colour images from the current mars rovers that show a bluish sky. I've also seen pics from the Viking missions that show a yellowish green sky.

It all depends on the filters used. Near infrared filters will really distort the colours. Read the link to Kano's explination on the Mars images that some one posted, if you haven't already.

Try prove the atmospheric pressure is in fact as low as NASA suggests.

I only have the data that NASA, ESA and the Russian space agency have provided, so read more info from them. I have no means to produce my own data.

Our very first picture showed no dust suspension. Luck ?

The ones i've seen show the air looking dusty, but with the sky more greenish yellow in some pics and whitish pink in others.

If you have never thought of why then you have done no thinking at all. Sagan's words as the first picture from Mars came on screen; " It looks like Arizona".

"looks like" in the roughest of terms perhaps. I don't know, but when I compare images of Arizona to Mars, they really look nothing alike to me. Something to do with all that green vegitation all over the place.

Go think about it and stop pretending you have knowledge enough to treat your seniors the way you have done so far.

So i'm not allowed to have a different opinion? I can't criticize Mr. Lear's opinions because he's older than me? I thought this was a discussion forum. If he doesn't like what I have to say he can ignore me (which he seems to be doing).

Originally posted by StellarX


Irrefutable? One picture refutes all Kano's 'work' and it shows how data can be manipulated to 'prove' any point of the author's choosing. Since i have not looked at Kano's other work i will assume his conclusions were based on what he believes and not what he wants us to believe.

Stellar

My but you are a busy one aren't you? You think what you want and I'll stick with real photographic experts when it comes to basic photographic technology.

Kano's conclusions were based on the facts that the technology works off of, it's pretty simple really when you understand the various light spectrums and how digital photography works in conjunction with filters. Trying to talk about the manipulation of non manipulated data really doesn't get us anywhere does it? You seem to assume much based on nothing yet reject basic technological facts out of hand. That's a curious way to get at the truth.

John is welcome here and is quite able, so we need you and anyone else who isn't John Lear to STOP answering people who are asking JOHN questions.

Additionally, I would remind you that we don't suffer acidic ranters here for very long. So if you plan on continuing this discusison I strongly suggest you tone your caustic, personality focused rhetoric WAY DOWN and focus on the topical issues at hand mate.

Springer...


[edit on 6-16-2006 by Springer]

Originally posted by mecheng

For evil or somehow good?

For good.

Do you know if and how Jesus Christ fits into this picture?

As previously mentined in this thread, Jesus, Budda, Mohammad and many othersmay have been myths or may have been (as written in the so called 'Yellow Book' or 'Government Bible') humans sent down to "organize and pacify'.

Originally posted by jbondo
So John, are you of the opinion that the "mars records" and Michael Relfe are legitimate?

Don't know who that is so I googled it. Don't have time to read it so I don't know if it is legitimate. Sorry.

Thanks again John.
If the Earth is their 'soul farm' and they are harvesting our souls, how can that be considered good? Perhaps you could expand a bit on this?
Also, if their intentions are good, couldn't they just come out and explain what their doing? Especially if it's ultimately for good (I'm assuming you meant good for us, not necessarily good for them).

Regarding the images of the pyramids on Mars: sometime in 1989, maybe the first or second quarter, anyway a few months after Bob Lazar had been working at S-4 he told me about being shown some high quality close-up imaging of the pyramids at Cydonia. He told me that they clearly showed doors and windows. Bob and I drove down to JPL and asked to see Bob Nathan head of Viking imaging. Nathan was very gracious and offered to answer any questions we had. Bob explained that he worked at a very secret area near Groom Lake and that he had been shown high quality imaging of the pyramids at Cydonia. Our first question to Nathan was "Do any pictures other than 70A11 or 35A72 exist of Cydonia"? to which he answered 'no'. We then asked if Viking had ever been taken down to a lower orbit? Nathan answered 'yes' but he said 'we didn't take any pictures.'

This is classic case 'in the loop' disease. "In the Loop Disease" is where you think you are in the loop, you think you have every right to be in the loop, you are told you are in the loop, you even have an 'in the loop' badge but you are 'Out of The Loop'. Imagine Bob Nathan himself, the creator of digital imaging, saying, "Yeah, we went into lower orbit but we didn't take any pictures."