John Lear's Moon Pictures on ATS

Access Denied said:

John just admitted what I’ve suspected all along, he ordered them, they weren’t slipped to him (wink wink, nudge nudge) by a contractor like he implied at the beginning of this thread.

Springer, thanks for posting my photos.

The first 4 are separate scans of one photo Lunar Orbiter 2-162H. I ordered this photo many years ago from a NASA contractor, I forget which. When the package arrived it was a 16x20 inch negative. It took until a couple of years ago to find someone in Las Vegas that could print from a 16x20 negative. I had 2 prints made, one a 16x20 print and one 20x24 which is now on my den wall. I took the 16x20 over to Bob Lazars and he scanned it in 4 sections: no. 1 is top left, no. 2 is top right, no. 3 is bottom right and no. 4 is bottom left. No. 5 is a scan of Lunar Orbiter 5-155M.
.

www.abovetopsecret.com...&mem=johnlear

Next.

[edit on 17-6-2007 by undo]

Originally posted by Access Denied

John just admitted what I’ve suspected all along, he ordered them, they weren’t slipped to him (wink wink, nudge nudge) by a contractor like he implied at the beginning of this thread.

Thanks for your post AD. Would you mind posting my exact quote about the NASA photos being 'slipped' to me? This is what I thought I posted:

Springer, thanks for posting my photos.

The first 4 are separate scans of one photo Lunar Orbiter 2-162H. I ordered this photo many years ago from a NASA contractor, I forget which. When the package arrived it was a 16x20 inch negative. It took until a couple of years ago to find someone in Las Vegas that could print from a 16x20 negative. I had 2 prints made, one a 16x20 print and one 20x24 which is now on my den wall. I took the 16x20 over to Bob Lazars and he scanned it in 4 sections: no. 1 is top left, no. 2 is top right, no. 3 is bottom right and no. 4 is bottom left. No. 5 is a scan of Lunar Orbiter 5-155M.

Thanks again AD, and I appreciate your posts and comment, they are always welcome.

Hey, how is that apology for your vulgar comment to Undo coming along?

Originally posted by omelette
Hi. First post in this great thread.

Welcome

I recall Zorgon posting moon pics from some guy in the UK taken with a paltry 10" which compared favourably with the Hubble - suspicious

Actually I compared Mike's (from Britain) image to the Clementine Satellite image not the Hubble.

Here is Mikes again 10 inch scope...



Here is the Clementine Satellite color image...



But thank you for pointing that out, because the other picture that confirms this is ALSO from Britain!!! I never really made note of that but now that you bring it to my attention...

Perhaps you guys in England are looking at a different Moon?

Here is the one from Anthony's site... I haven't processed a clip small enough to post yet so here is the original...



212.23.30.185:88...

This time the scope is only an 8 INCH

Aristarchus Crater
Date: 17th December, 2005 ,22:34
Location: Rhodes, North Manchester
Telescope: 8" LX90 SCT
Camera: Philips ToUcam 2xBarlow
Image: 120 Stacked Frames
Processing Software: Registax 3 & Paintshop Pro 8
Image By: Anthony Jennings

Interestingly enough both Anthony's and Mikes were taken Dec 2005... but that gives us two independent sources that are NOT NASA related showing us the Blue Gem effect

Thanks Omelette... for getting us back on track

I mean you've got better weather and cheaper scopes and there is at least one guy on ATS with a 16". Just wondering...

I wrote to one guy with a 16 inch in Bermuda... and I asked him if he had ever taken color shots of the moon and could he look at Aristarchus

Here is his response...

"Have you ever tried it Ron?
This is about as coloured as it gets Ron. [image of a yellow tinted full moon]

1. It is possible to do an RGB image of the moon , but as it comes out pretty well mono, so its a bit of a wasted effort. BUT saying that, I will try it when the Moon is lowish, to see if it has a little more lustre than the rather flat looking added yellow of the attached image.

Maximum resolution for me, comes from imaging it with a red filter as this longer wavelength is less upset by the turbulent atmosphere.

Cheers "

When I sent him a copy of Mike's Aristarchus and his full moon in color... I never heard back...

I also contacted the MT Palomar observatory with their 200 nch scope.... here is their reply (posted before but its relevant here)

"Hi Ron,

I haven't seen any images of the Moon from Palomar either. It is possible that some were taken long ago, but astronomers would rather explore the Moon with spacecraft and use the big telescopes for observing much, much fainter objects.

Clear skies,

- Scott "

W. Scott Kardel
Public Affairs Coordinator, Palomar Observatory
Telephone: (760) 742-2111
E-mail: [email protected]
WWW:www.palomar-observatory.org

Office hours: usually 7:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. Tuesday through Saturday

The Hubble image that has been displayed many times on many sites, and as far as I have been able to find, is the only one... Pay attention to the Credits in the lower left..

The above image was created by J.Garvin and his team. It is a composite image that is one frame of an animation. Below is the relevant data. You can compare the name on the image to those below.

HST imagery of Aristarchus Crater draped over simulated topography

Animators:
Greg Shirah (Lead)
Alex Kekesi
Greg Bacon
Studio: SVS
Completed: 2005-10-12
Scientist: James Garvin (NASA/GSFC)
Instruments:
HST/ACS
Clementine/HIRES
Data Collected:
HST: 2005/08/16 - 2005/08/21;
Clementine:1998/02/07-1999/06/25

SOURCE: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio

You will notice the last line...Clementine:1998/02/07-1999/06/25

When we first found this site while looking for info on the Clementine Satelite we spotted these dates...

JRA wrote to them asking about this discrepancy and they have since changed the date...

Okay sure anyone can make a typo (I will have more on Clementine shortly) but the point is that the only image of Aristarchus from Hubble is not a true image, but rather a composite with Clementine data mixed in for an animation frame

For those interested in the Clementine Mystery... I want you to look at the next page closely... and pay attention to the text in red... (there will be a test later )

Wherefore Art Thou Clementine?



[edit on 17-6-2007 by zorgon]

Undo, remember what I told you in my U2U back when. That when the truth about what is taking place and what is really on the Moon that disinformation agents would be sent to discredit John and the team on the Moon threads. Remember the powers in charge of the massive cover up will go to great lengths to continue to keep it secret.

We are talking discrediting NASA here, it is a double edged sword. Yes we appreciate photos that NASA sends our way from the Earth's Moon, Planets and Moons in our Solar System. What we are truley looking for is unscensored photos of the Moon and Solar System make up.

This includes no airbrushed photos, no superimposing one photo overlaid over another, poor resolution that we no darn well is much much better, detailed photos of the Moon from observatories around the world we know have been kept from the public, the Hubble Telescope Moon photo findings that have not been forth coming taken of the Moon, camouflaging the surface of the Moon, Moons or Planets whether it be by Earth occupants design or Alien design to hide the truth.

I know I have missed a few things but what I would like to see is John Lear start another Moon thread where amatuer and professional backyard telescope owners post their good quality digital camera photos of the Moon. I suggested it be called Project Moon Beam or it could be called what ever John would like it to be called. This would be a worldwide effort this way John would receive Moon photos from all latitudes and longitudes and weather conditions from Earth. The telescope owner could also direct us to their individual websites. This may surprise you on the response at first because it will be slow and then once the word gets out an avalanche of photos could take place. Rik Riley

[edit on 17-6-2007 by rikriley]

Originally posted by johnlear
Received with the same order, all retouched:

LOI-136H3
LO2-61H1
LO2-56H2
LO3-84M
LO3-85M
LOV-125M
LOV-155M
LOV-168H2

Nice try. Prove these images have been retouched. Showing us other pictures taken at different times/angles etc. that appear different isn’t going to cut it and doesn’t prove anything nefarious is going on. Again, until you can show us copies of these exact same images that haven’t been retouched your claim is bunk.

Originally posted by johnlear

Originally posted by Access Denied
A sample of at least one (preferably more) of these same photos that hasn’t been retouched for comparison.

Are you kidding? That’s what I’d like to have.

Thought so. Thank you for finally admitting that you have zero evidence and your claim is bunk.

Originally posted by johnlear
I invite you to order it: LO2-162H. 60 days should be sufficient. Order from any NASA contractor be sure and specify you want 16 x 20 negative. Accept no substitutions. Report back here August 16, 2007. Thanks.

Why bother? I already know anyone could order a negative from NASA in the past. Not sure if you still can so I went one better and asked for a high resolution digital scan and elimaated at least one copy generation.

Originally posted by johnlear

Originally posted by Access Denied
A copy of the same photo John presented that also wasn’t retouched by virtue of the fact that the same “anomalies” (that presumably would need to be hidden) are still there (for all practical purposes).

Actually only small portions have ever been presented.

I showed your “parking garage” is there and several others. Is there something specific you’d like to see? I posted a link to the full image so feel free to download it and let’s see you prove me wrong for a change.

Originally posted by johnlear

Originally posted by Access Denied
Evidence that more the one unretouched negative (in fact at least three) exist (or existed) of this same photo by virtue of the fact that scans of these additional negatives clearly show differences in the reconstruction of the original photo from the archived spacecraft image data.

Show the evidence please.

That’s already been discussed, did you miss it?

Originally posted by johnlear
Thanks for your post AD. Would you mind posting my exact quote about the NASA photos being 'slipped' to me? This is what I thought I posted:

Of course you conveniently left this part out...

Originally posted by johnlear
Through some quirk of fate I not only received on that wasn't retouched but received the actual negative.

What “quirk of fate” was that John? (wink wink, nudge nudge)

Originally posted by johnlearHey, how is that apology for your vulgar comment to Undo coming along?

Undo already apologized to me too. Try to pay attention please and read the entire thread before you post thank you.

Ow! The light's too bright undo! Can ya turn it down a tad?

*shields eyes with forearm*

-here we go again pow! pow! budadadadaow!...from somewhere rips the braaak! of an uzi; posts are grazed, reputations strafed; in the famous words of Mars Attacks "can't we all just get along"?

Originally posted by Access Denied
OK fine, in my opinion he’s whacked. It’s all just hearsay/words. Show me something independently verifiable and reproducible in the lab (e.g.. where I spend my waking hours) and then we’ll talk. Anyway, I think this says it all better than I could…

So you would just totally ignore the video presentation of the coil that you COULD reproduce in the lab?

And the two magnets experiment can also be done in the lab.. well if you don't mind spending 5,000 a piece for Neodymium Magnets

But I do not find it a surprise that you would consider him "whacked" I guess we can just add him to the list of others like Buzz Aldrin when he openly states he saw a UFO... we all know the stress working for NASA or companies like Lockheed Martin puts you under...

Well I think I know where I will put my money in this case


To All...

For those not familiar with Boyd Bushman here are the videos...





So if this man is "whacked" we need to take a long hard look at the hiring practices of our Government

Undo did a recent interview with Serada in which he shares more info from an interview he did with Bushman... Its available at Ancient Futures radio...(link at the bottom of her posts)

Originally posted by rikrileyThis may surprise you on the response at first it will be slow and then once the word gets out an avalanche of photos could take place. Rik Riley

Well when the avalanche comes.. can we count on you to help process the data and post it?

And if we were to do that, how about calling independent observatories in other countries, perhaps some that are not USA friendly? We might get different results

Originally posted by Access Denied...in my opinion he’s whacked.

Yeah, I know, it is too short of a quote to take in context. But outside of your context, I could say that Einstein is whacked. It is just a matter of opinion, or personal problems.

I think you have touched on your source. Anything or anyone that does not fit inside your idealogical box you take personal truck with.

Well buckeroo, you're in for a rough ride because this is the way real science works. The theorists theorize and the engineers design. And nothing is ever completely "proven", "absolute", or "settled".

So where would you like to start, engineering as in Henry Wallace's kinemassic force field, or theory as with Stephen J. Smith's work?

Originally posted by Matyas
Ow! The light's too bright undo! Can ya turn it down a tad?

*shields eyes with forearm*

-here we go again

pow! pow! budadadadaow!...from somewhere rips the braaak! of an uzi; posts are grazed, reputations strafed; in the famous words of Mars Attacks "can't we all just get along"?

lol Wait, why are you appealing to me when there are ... what, six other people here discussing this besides me?
Is that a warning or ?

Originally posted by Matyas
And if you want to talk more bait, that part about being an advocate is not going to open my doors to you. Its a different story if you come in here waving a fistfull of cash, but just saying you are with us does not mean you can or will help us.

Well, if it's money you want then send me some papers. You already have my email address. If they make it though my credibility filter or the math is a little over my head (hell I barely made it through two semesters of calculus based physics LOL) then I will submit them for independant peer review and we'll see what happens from there. Fair enough?

No guarantees though, it’s a pretty tough crowd I hang with. We’ve spent millions and millions of dollars over the years making sure no stone remains unturned (yet they still claim nobody listens LOL)… so far with less than stellar results if you catch my drift.

Here are 2 photos of Endymion. Endymion is on the near side and is located about the 1:30 position at the edge of the visible portion of the moon. One photo was taken by the Lick Observatory 36 inch telescope. The other was taken by an amateur with a 10 inch telescope. Each photo has been enlarged so that Endymion will appear approximately the same size. Your task, should you accept the challenge, is to figure out which telescope took which photo:

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by rikrileyThis may surprise you on the response at first it will be slow and then once the word gets out an avalanche of photos could take place. Rik Riley

Well when the avalanche comes.. can we count on you to help process the data and post it?

And if we were to do that, how about calling independent observatories in other countries, perhaps some that are not USA friendly?

We might get different results

Zorgon, you bet what ever it takes to accomplish Project Moon Beam. Talking on the phone is my forte and if you have a list of independent observatories outside the country, their phone numbers and addresses I will start calling, writting or e-mailing. If not I will google the info needed to get in touch with the observatories inside and outside the country. Depending on what is deemed an unfriendly nation and I am not breaking any laws communicating with the observatories outside the U.S.A. I will contact them for Moon photos or other interesting photos taken of the Solar System and Universe.

I will stick my neck out and say Project Moon Beam will have millions of hits per year once up and running full bore. To accomplish this we alert every amatuer telescope and camera magazine across the world about Project Moon Beam. This of course would have to have John Lear's and the support teams greenlight go ahead. John get ready for interviews if you are up to the task. What kind of support do you suppose we would get from telescope and digital camera manufactures for Project Moon Beam. Rik Riley

Originally posted by rikriley

This of course would have to have John Lear's and the support teams greenlight go ahead. John get ready for interviews if you are up to the task. What kind of support do you suppose we would get from telescope and digital camera manufactures for Project Moon Beam. Rik Riley

The green light is on. I will open the thread when we establish a few minor details. I think you are overly optimistic about the support you're going to get from observatories and it will be interesting to see what kind of support we get from the public.

Originally posted by ArMaP
There is something I don't understand.

Hi ArMaP sorry I missed this post of yours earlier.

Originally posted by ArMaP
How does the fact that John Lear got an unretouched copy and a negative makes it impossible for other people to get them?

Exactly! That’s my point. The logical conclusion is (in the absence of any evidence to the contrary) no copies are retouched.

Originally posted by ArMaP
Or did John Lear said that he was the only person to get them and I missed that?

He didn’t say he was the only one, he said he got an unretouched negative by some “quirk of fate”…

www.abovetopsecret.com...

John has yet to explain why a “quirk of fate” would be necessary to get an unretouched negative.

It is my opinion that in saying this he was deliberately attempting to mislead (hoax) the members of ATS by ascribing an exclusivity to his copy of this image that simply doesn’t exist. On the other hand, I’m perfectly willing to accept that I am the only one here who got that impression… or perhaps more importantly… cares.

Oh well, they say if you can't beat 'em, join 'em so my new motto is...

EMBRACE IGNORANCE!

[edit to insert missing period]

[edit on 17-6-2007 by Access Denied]

Originally posted by Access Denied

EMBRACE IGNORANCE!

6. Argumentum ad hominem
This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by Access Denied

EMBRACE IGNORANCE!

6. Argumentum ad hominem
This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater

And you forgot number 7, the "cream of the crop":

originally posted by Undo
7. Argumentum ad ignorantiam
This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false.

As it applies to this statement from above:

originally posted by Access Denied

Exactly! That’s my point. The logical conclusion is (in the absence of any evidence to the contrary) no copies are retouched

Unfortunately, if that is your point, AD, then you have lost the debate. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You seem to house many of the charicteristics that make so many people untrusting of mainstream science. Your statement is indicative of a loss of ability to think outside the box. Very unfortunate.

Do you have to believe it to be true in order to consider it possible?

Originally posted by johnlear
Here are 2 photos of Endymion. Endymion is on the near side and is located about the 1:30 position at the edge of the visible portion of the moon. One photo was taken by the Lick Observatory 36 inch telescope. The other was taken by an amateur with a 10 inch telescope. Each photo has been enlarged so that Endymion will appear approximately the same size. Your task, should you accept the challenge, is to figure out which telescope took which photo:

Lick lacks clarity.

The right side of Endymion looks very interesting in the non-Lick pic.

I found a rather large rendition (in .png format) of Copernicus:

starryskies.com...

Not sure if you have this version or not...but it is somewhat large.