John Lear's Moon Pictures on ATS

Originally posted by Fowl Play

" Fantasies"? that is rich coming from the guy who brought us the Soul Tower and a 66% of Earths atmosphere..

Just to be sure I am clear on your position Fowl Play when you refer to the “Soul Tower” are you referring to the “Big Soul Machine On the Moon?” And if you are is it your position that the tower seen in LO-3-84M is not a tower? And if not what do you suppose the object is? Or that souls are not received, stored, sorted and transmitted by it? And if not, where do you suppose the souls of mankind are received, stored, sorted and transmitted? Or do you believe there is a soul? And if you do, what do you suppose happens to it after we die?

Regarding your statement “66% of earths atmosphere.” You may be confused about what I have said. I said that the moons gravity is at least 64% of earths based on the Newton/Bullialdus law of inverse square and the application of the neutral point of 43,495 miles as stated by Von Braun and others. I have further stated that based on a gravity that is 64% that of earths that the moon has a ‘breathable atmosphere’.

I would respectfully request that you clarify your position and statement "that is rich". Thanks for your post.

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by greatlakes
Regards to the www.marsanomalyresearch.com... site,

Okay so you like Skipper's site... marvelous

But I can just as easily point out many anomalies that he makes great claims for that are just as "out there: as ours...

I didn't say I agreed with ALL of those "findings", theres alot of "findings" on that site But the presentation of the anomalies there and the analysis of them are much more documented and logically stated, backed by as much evidence as possible, analyzed and sound conclusions made.

Originally posted by zorgon
So I fail to see your point. Surely you are not suggesting everyone has to follow a mold that make YOU happy? Hmmm

No not my mold, or skippers mold, but a mold that any critically thinking person would expect, some reasonable diligence with regards to some analysis on most of the images if there are to be posted, image analysis, source photos, alternate images showing different perspectives, anomaly highlighting, what it could be (soul collector), what it could also be (natural feature or other anomaly), what it most likely is (shadow and light effect, pareidolia) etc etc. based on the available EVIDENCE. If a lack of evidence, conclusions should reflect this fact and speculative conclusions, if stated, should have that disclaimer on them.

Without this diligence and evidence, any findings, past, present or future, will be looked at as just another piece of tabloid-like entertainment. But if thats the way you like it...

Originally posted by zorgon
I would say that a comment like that ignores all the hard work in THIS thread by many people to provide all original links, give their viewpoint and provide as much documentation as is available.

I didn't say all the images posted on this thread, you guys have done lots of work on the images, but I contest that both possible sides of the coin have been put forward.


[edit on 6/20/2007 by greatlakes]

Originally posted by Matyas
The potential for abuse is great.

Understood. And to be sure the offer is limited to propulsion related concepts (non air-breathing). Anyway, enjoy your vacation.

Ad Astra!

P.S. The Depressing State Of The Art


[edit on 20-6-2007 by Access Denied]

Originally posted by greatlakes

I keep an open mind on these things, but alot of the posts here are just people posting images and a question like "Okay what the heck is this?" without most performing any analysis of them. This just leads to more people posting their images and saying "OMG moon base!".

Just because logic and common sense dictates the statement that shadows and light effects can trick our mind into seeing things that aren't really what we perceive them to be (encapsulated by the phrase "tricks of shadows and light") does not mean that it is "overused and abused" as you say. Maybe you perceive it that way because it appears so often on this thread...Maybe its the default position because its true in most cases of anomaly image research and analysis.

Pareidolia as well in many cases, not only seeing "faces" in light and shadow arrangements, but any terrestrial objects that we as human are familiar with. For instance, why is it that the anomalies are all labeled as familiar objects in this thread, things like "cranes" "water wheels" "spacecraft", why not as alien things that we have no familiarity with? en.wikipedia.org...

Ive visited the following website many times and find much of the info there to be fairly well done, documented and some convincing, thats the way it should ideally be done. www.marsanomalyresearch.com...

The website uses image analysis, logical arguments on BOTH SIDES as to the possibilities of what an anomaly may or may not be, other pertinent and legitimate supporting evidence, as well as listing all relevant sources and documentation.

Tabloids on the other hand, who do they have to answer to? Nobody. So what kind of stories do we see in these rags? Entertaining ones thats for sure, but none that any of us (well maybe JL) take seriously. Do we see any sources documented when the tabloid writes a headline "Britney Spears Has Alien Baby!", err I don't think any credible sources would be cited...

Why am I here? to deny ignorance of course

There are several points I disagree with John and Ron on and have even mentioned them in the thread. So accusing people who appreciate either of their moon input in the thread of being followers without critical thinking skills or are simply mindlessly parroting the same ideas, is incorrect. Matyas has different ideas than Ron, John or me, so there again, it's not a matter of mindlessly parroting. RikRiley has different ideas as well. The only thing the regulars on this thread appear to have in common is the ability to see the anomalies.

For example, I'm a christian. Ron is not and neither is John. They both vehemently disagree with me on that topic. We find common ground in what we see in the images of the moon. Ron is more or less a buddhist, but has also some Rosicrucian training. John is more or less an atheist, although he does have a few ideas that sound like scientology, I don't think he's a scientologist. He doesn't seem to care much for religion, so I'm assuming he's just forming his own opinions about matters of the afterlife and so on, as he goes along, rather than taking a particular religion to follow. I could be wrong on that but the bottom line is, we are from different religious/non-religious positions. Matyas and RikRiley aren't in agreement on the religious aspect either, from what I can tell. We're individuals, ya know?

It's also important to note, that mainstream christianity would view my position on the topic of moon anomalies as ridiculous. They would have the same skepticism, if not moreso, as Access Denied - that sort of brittle, unyielding doubt of everything that isn't outlined in detail in the bible (or the nearest science book). So this is not an inherently christian position that I'm taking, it's just I'm a bit more open-minded than the mainstream as regards this topic.

Whether skeptics would like to admit or not, most of them are victims of German Higher Criticism, which was itself just a branch of catholicism doing its damage control. They didn't want to lose their position as the authors and finishers of truth, so they created a faction to take the opposite position on science topics, and then proceeded to dictate the new truth. Same bat time, same bat channel, same unyielding "it's either our way or the highway."

Next, I have done my best to explain what I think I'm seeing in these images. It's just not all on these last few pages. For example, in the video I made, you can see something that is by Aristarchus. I've asked in the image "What is this?" but when the image was originally presented, I said what I thought it was. Would you like to know what I think it is? I do have a hypothesis on the subject. But there's no feasible way to "test" it, other than to find more examples that would support the idea, such as ancient texts or other photographic anomalies. I did this work, but the problem arises in that some people have absolutely no regard for our ancient past (thanks to German Higher Criticism).

Usually, I try to stipulate what I think an anomalie is or what I think it looks like, but it often seems more productive in a thread such as this, to just present it and let others who see it, offer what they think or don't think it is. That seems the best route to take. Many skeptics however, invariably see nothing. There's no way to even discuss it because it just isn't there, as far as they're concerned.



[edit on 20-6-2007 by undo]

Originally posted by Access Denied

You all who are supporting John may think you’re denying ignorance but all you’re really doing as I see it is alienating the people who would be most likely to support you if you ever actually did stumble onto something extraordinary one of these days. The fact that you only have a handful of active supporters on a website literally crawling with folks with their tin foil hats firmly in place (not that’s there’s anything wrong with that LOL) ought to tell you something… if they’re not buying it no one will.

People come to the table with their own prejudices, built-in. Some bring their utter disdain for religion, some their utter disdain for science, and some with variations of trust or don't trust, the status-quo, the government, and so on. The ones that remain to discuss the possibilities are frequently those who are a bit more open-minded or who have their own particular agenda to advance. They may not all agree with John or Ron or Me or Matyas or any other position, but they remain because the subject doesn't rise or fall on any one individual's personally held beliefs, but on whether they are also seeing anomalies.

Allow me to give you an example:

In UFOlogy, people align themselves, either yea or nay, with a particular figure or figures of import. Then, they proceed to totally disapprove of anyone who disagrees/agrees with that important figure or figures -- even a little. An example are people who support NASA vs. people who don't. Fence riders or moderates on the topic, invariably get tossed into one court or the other, whether they want to or not, because it seems the template for discussing the topic is often diametrically-opposed positions. This in turn, creates suspicion and disbelief of equal magnitude on both sides and the pendulum swings dramatically back and forth from too much to too little.

Not that middle of the road is the only viable position, but on matters of science, striking one position or the other to the exclusion of all else, because of political, religious or social stance, is really not science. The good news is, there's no correct way to do science. As long as the final answer is the truth, the approach is inconsequential. Afterall, science is supposed to be about arriving at the truth, not arriving at a particular political, social, financial or religious stance. And since we are individuals, we are all going to arrive at that position differently. Of course, this method of arriving at the truth, should, in my opinion, always be contingent on respect for your fellow human (in other words, experimenting on humans without their approval and/or knowledge, is not a viable means of science under most circumstances, for example. i say most circumstances because, if a person is comatose and the doctors opt to experiment within the bounds of medicine, in an attempt to revive and heal the patient, that's different. that's respecting the life of the patient. but experimenting on someone because you view their life as your expendable property, that's not respect for your fellow human).

Ask John what he thinks of my christian beliefs or some of the anomalies I've found. He'll tell you that he thinks christianity is bunk and some of my discoveries are not what I think they are. I don't agree with his soul catcher idea or reincarnation or his hard line stance on christianity. Does that change the anomalies on the moon? What? You're kidding me right? Ask the same of Ron or Matyas or anybody in the thread, really. What you seem to be disgruntled with is the idea that people can still get along and support one another on other topics, even if they don't agree with each other entirely. What that says to me is, that you're extremely prejudice for your particular position to the exclusion of all else.



[edit on 20-6-2007 by undo]

Please people, can we stop trying to get into personal vendetta's. The thread gets more and more frustrating to participate in. If somebody is seeing something else then me or you that is his/her right. No need to ridicule or 'attack' him/her for his believe.

I dont think John tried to be harse when he said to be more specific about my 'analysis'. I will explain my view of that picture later. I agree with John on some of his idea's, believes or whatever you want to call it. What i present here is not to attack, ridicule somebody but my view of what "could" cause the anomalie i see.

To answer the question of what i believe, my signature answers that question.

Personally, I'm fed up with having the entire issue of anomalies on the moon being connected with whether or not John believes in a Soul Catching Tower in Sinus Medii. This ain't about John! It's about what is or is not, on the moon. Why should any of this extraneous information change the anomalies? It isn't whether we are republicans, democrats, socialists, communists, religious, non-religious, it's about the anomalies. Now what we do with the information once we have it, is our own say-so, but arriving at that point, shouldn't have to be based on whether we concur 100 percent on everything else.

Crikee, folks. Even husbands and wives don't agree on everything entirely. People in the same class, don't agree on everything. Or the same country. Or the same science lab. Quit trying to make us all into mindless clones of each other. Thank you!

[edit on 20-6-2007 by undo]

Originally posted by Cygnific
Please people, can we stop trying to get into personal vendetta's. The thread gets more and more frustrating to participate in. If somebody is seeing something else then me or you that is his/her right. No need to ridicule or 'attack' him/her for his believe.

I dont think John tried to be harse when he said to be more specific about my 'analysis'. I will explain my view of that picture later. I agree with John on some of his idea's, believes or whatever you want to call it. What i present here is not to attack, ridicule somebody but my view of what "could" cause the anomalie i see.

To answer the question of what i believe, my signature answers that question.

Amen to that!

Oh wait, you don't agree with me one hundred percent! Egads It's okay if you don't agree with my religion (well it's not okay but it's not my choice either! It's your choice! Imagine that!). *sniffle* I'll live. *sob, blow nose*

And back to the anomalies!

Originally posted by undo
Even husbands and wives don't agree on everything entirely.
[edit on 20-6-2007 by undo]

Yes indeed, my wifes thinks i'm crazy sometimes. Maybe she is right, but it doesn't change what i 'believe' to see.

I see John's moon pictures as a seperate more radical thread, it does not mean it is only about John. Even if none of this is true, it is fun no? The mainstream news is more about wars and death, and i'm tired of that.

Originally posted by Cygnific
Please people, can we stop trying to get into personal vendetta's.

Cygnific... its not personal vendetta's here.. after almost 200 pages of this thread its more of an "establishing ones position" And no matter how hard we try, we are all humans here... (well... as far as i KNOW no one has claimed off world status yet...) we will from time to time slip into expressing our overall views... So far with but a few exceptions we have all managed to get along quite nicely, no matter where your belief level lies...

Undo has put that whole picture into a marvelous package... it is quite true that all those that have associated with Pegasus do not agree on everything... and in fact do interpret some things differently...

From what I have seen on the skeptic side... the same is true... my U2U's and Emails from some of "those on that side of the fence" show this to be true on some issues, and have at times provided me with interesting leads.

Like it or not this thread HAS become an entertainment for many, whether you believe it to be "tabloid" style or not. It must also be remembered that not everyone here is into this for the sake of research... most are just curious. I know many never follow links to documents and scientific papers that quite frankly even bore me at times...

So showing images we find and saying "Hey what do YOU see" is actually one of the best ways to present something here.

Do you know how many times I have pointed out a "fact" and have a document trail to support it, yet no one even asks about it? LOL its almost funny...

But okay I will go back to presenting our case... I have a lot more that needs being put in order and I have time off for the next 6 weeks or so... so I will concentrate on that...

Originally posted by Access Denied
You all who are supporting John may think you’re denying ignorance but all you’re really doing as I see it is alienating the people who would be most likely to support you if you ever actually did stumble onto something extraordinary one of these days. The fact that you only have a handful of active supporters on a website literally crawling with folks with their tin foil hats firmly in place (not that’s there’s anything wrong with that LOL) ought to tell you something… if they’re not buying it no one will.

Okay now this is pure and utter BS there is no nice way to say it...

First of all I had done research into UFO's Ancient Aliens etc over 30 years ago, long before I ever heard of John... I am sure there are many out there who share similar beliefs and we have all ended up here at ATS from some search we did...

The "Denying Ignorance" phrase is often tossed about by those on the Skeptic side... it seems they never once consider the possibility that they just might be wrong in some cases... and at that point would indeed be promoting ignorance themselves...

WE are just as much denying ignorance trying to educate YOU about whats going on... and until either side can show "proof positive" this is a SPECULATIVE topic and thus has really nothing to do with "denying ignorance" either way... we are merely SEEKING ANSWERS

As to the "scaring off support" you have no idea how wrong you are. My work here has given me more official contacts in a year than I gathered in 30 years of study... people I have met... [John has become a close friend] and others "from the inside" who will be stopping by in July...

So respectfully... you don't know what your talking about

Originally posted by undo
Many skeptics however, invariably see nothing. There's no way to even discuss it because it just isn't there, as far as they're concerned.

As the previous system was replaced with the new one, here you have my virtual vote on you posts in this page:


But I have to disagree when you say that there is no way to discuss the anomalies when the skeptics don't see them, we can still discuss why some people see it and why some people do not see it, in that way some of those who do not see the anomalies may understand why and what the other people see, and maybe some of those who see the anomalies may reach the conclusion that they are not anomalies at all.

Originally posted by ArMaP
But I have to disagree when you say that there is no way to discuss the anomalies when the skeptics don't see them, we can still discuss why some people see it and why some people do not see it, in that way some of those who do not see the anomalies may understand why and what the other people see, and maybe some of those who see the anomalies may reach the conclusion that they are not anomalies at all.

True enough. I was willing to back down on the theory that the hairy stuff on Europa was not hairy stuff. What it is, I dunno, but there's still something really fishy going on considering the amount of anomalous things that can be seen when the hairy stuff is either clear as a bell or totally missing.

well... as far as i KNOW no one has claimed off world status yet...

Jesus said, "He was not of this world" and according to the text His believers become not of this world too. lol *runs to have herself checked for alien DNA!* Actually, I think "world" in this instance refers to the physical realm, such as "of the world." Egads, what if I'm turning into an ET and don't know it. hehehe

Sorry, little divergence for comic relief.

Back to the anomalies!

I too am getting sick of the arguing. There are a LOT of things here that aren't proven to be anything, but please, keep your personal beliefs out of this. Fine if you can point out clearly that an artifact is just a rock or whatever, but name calling?

Of course this is my belief(..on opinion stated as fact...)that this thread as brought up more questions that can ever be answered by the...ahhh.. Official channels.... NASA will not even discuss anomalies...that should say something. It is left to us..the citizens, to ask AND answer the questions. Is the govt or NASA the only agencies that have the tech to look at the pictures with a VERY critical eye? Of course not! They never thought that they would have to contend with tech that would be so ...’mainstream’...that it would render their tampering as so obvious. Their only defense is to say... ‘of course we are not lying..we work for you, the good of mankind’..

It is a sad state of the world when those in power think that some of the most important issues need to be....what ..hiden/covered up/ lie about/fabricated.....all to keep us..the people...the governed, the controlled.. fighting amongst ourselves so the focus on ...the anomalies and what could be causing them is totally dwarfed by personal opinions. It is plainly obvious that something is being hidden....

It is a horrible catch 22 that is very difficult to break out of. Imagine what the world would be like if the truth was told from the very beginning...................................................................................................................I guess you could say..they have won

Originally posted by ArMaP we can still discuss why some people see it and why some people do not see it,

Not really all you can do is state why you THINK some are seeing it, because those that see rocks cannot see into the minds of those who see anomalies...

I could just as easily say the reason you only see rocks is because the universe doesn't think your ready for the truth... but imagine what a can of worms a thought like that would open... so I wouldn't even suggest that...

in that way some of those who do not see the anomalies may understand why and what the other people see, and maybe some of those who see the anomalies may reach the conclusion that they are not anomalies at all.

And maybe some skeptics can see what they were missing and that there really ARE anomalies


[edit on 21-6-2007 by zorgon]

oops

[edit on 21-6-2007 by zorgon]

Zorgon, you win the award for the shortest response on record. oops LOL just kidding. On with the show we have mostly agreed to agree or disagree in a civil manner. I know we want individuals to visit this thread and tell others what they saw, how informative John Lear's Moon pictures on ATS can be and how interesting with comments, photos and analysis the viewers contribute on a day to day basis.

I appreciate your dedication to making this thread work along with John and his support team. Again thanks everyone. Rik Riley

There is an interesting thread developing about some NASA coverup with real proof...

I suggest having a look, especially recent developments

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by zorgon
There is an interesting thread developing about some NASA coverup with real proof...

I suggest having a look, especially recent developments

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yeah, I've been reading it since the beginning. I've even saved a few of his images. I'm not sure what to make of them. They look like all kinds of things. I wish he could've gotten clearer pics. Someone mentioned one of them looked like an Imperial Star Destroyer (from Star Wars, the triangular battle cruisers that vader rode around in when he wasn't in a Tie-Fighter) that had been blurred, but when I studied it, I found that it didn't look like that at all - wrong structures and so forth. Then I thought for a moment I saw the Discovery 1 from 2001 A Space Odyssey, but on closer inspection it turned out to be different. It's weird. They're just blurred enough that nothing conclusive can be nailed down.