John Lear's Moon Pictures on ATS

Ohhh... that sound familiar, but way back to the Clem pics.

What, again is the "womb" area?

This is the top half: (hi res, big image)

www.thestargates.com...

The bottom half is (which is the section Ron / John called "The Womb" )

thestargates.com...




[edit on 29-6-2007 by undo]

Well, ladies and gentlemen, it looks like we won’t have to speculate about these anomalies for much longer, for the mere ticket price of $100 million you can go check it out for yourself . . . as soon as next year . . . good thing Mr. Lear has already shown us where to pick up our luggage!

www.space.com...

www.space.com...

I can hear the pilot now, " . . . if you look out the left side of the space ship you will see what LOOKS like a 100 mile tower reaching into space, but it is actually hydro-electric moonscape etching . . . "

Edit for grammar

[edit on 29-6-2007 by DrZERO]

Originally posted by undo

Ohhh... that sound familiar, but way back to the Clem pics.

What, again is the "womb" area?

This is the top half: (hi res, big image)

www.thestargates.com...

The bottom half is (which is the section Ron / John called "The Womb" )

thestargates.com...

Oh yeah... Reiner Gamma ... No one (including scientists) seems to know what the heck causes that.

Originally posted by DrZERO
Well, ladies and gentlemen, it looks like we won’t have to speculate about these anomalies for much longer, for the mere ticket price of $100 million you can go check it out for yourself . . .

www.space.com...

www.space.com...

hehe.. that looks like a rather aggressive plan for '08

nice marketing, though

Originally posted by Zarniwoop
Oh yeah... Reiner Gamma ... No one (including scientists) seems to know what the heck causes that.

This was from a time I was more deeply involved with the thread. As far as I understand, this is a local magnetic anomaly. The difference in soil color is due to the behavior of dust interacting with cosmic rays in the field, or something to that effect.

Subscribing to the EU theory, rock with ferromagnetic properties can become polarized under the influence of a massive electric current (which occurs as a difference of potential discharging between local bodies).

I also want to insert my caveat here regarding my mention of water clouds forming due to electric fields produced by cosmic rays in the previous post. I do not know at this time whether or not this applies to both atmospheres and "airless" bodies, or just one and not the other.

You go tex, show 'em who the god of thunder is! Too bad Cygnific is not here to see this

To paraphrase a often misunderstood Biblical passage,

"The Sun shall not smite thee by day nor the Moon by night"

And those stories of heavenly fire descending upon sacrificial altars, the stars becoming blotted out as if the heavens were rolled up and the Sun becoming dark, all tell-tell signs of major cosmic disturbances which could easily be explained by the solar system passing through a dense interstellar dust cloud.

I can picture early man hiding in their caves with holy dread as he awaits the eventual equivalent discharge of thousands of atomic bombs created by the buildup of electric ground streamers on the Savannah. It would definitely put the fear of Something in anyone, not just your occasional t-storms that have been with us ever since.

I also see connections with many other parts, such as our solar system's complex dance around the Milky Way's center, the flipping of the Earth's core, the repositioning of moons and other planets resulting in millions of years of bombardments by small bodies like asteroids...so does God play pool? I think so, ever so rarely by our reckoning of time, but real mayhem over cosmic time.

Just as the seasons dictate the cycles of life, our dance around the galactic tree dictates the course of evolution. A .6 degree tip this way over 66 M yrs., a flip of the ecliptic that way over 95.75 M yrs, and the rare but looming encounter with a dust cloud takes its toll.

Originally posted by johnlear...what do you think is causing those square shadows? (Blue arrows) Or actually they might be triangular shadows.

Yeah, go ahead and dangle that carrot, I will resist the urge!

...resist...resist...resist... *pant-pant*

John, i provided the Thunderbolts images and articles for context. Wallace Thornhill is pretty contended among most scientists, and he from time to time gets a little far reaching in his concepts. David Talbott is not much of a scientist and all he does is present Thornhills information in a more sensational sort of way.

There are many inconsistencies with some minor details, and a few inconsistencies with major details. But the core of the science is pretty solid (as i will represent shortly), and i am intruiged by the concept of Plasma emissions in high energy fields being the catalyst for much of our ancient mythos.

EU theory is not quite mainstream (yet) but is very intensely studied by scientists behind the scenes. It is very telling to me that NASA and LANL are doing plasma cosmology research (actually leading the field), but it is not being explained among the populace. It is hidden in plain sight, more or less.

Dr. Timothy Eastman is a fairly reputable scientists (or, such is the opinion among reputable scientists). He works for Raytheon providing support in a Project Manager capacity for Goddard Space Science Center/NASA. As well, he consults with LANL on their project, proving much of the backbone of their current line of research. The website that LANL has set up for their Plasma Cosmology research is Dr Eastman's.

Here is LANL's (you have to click to enter)
public.lanl.gov...

It will link you into Dr. Eastman's site. Remember, Eastman works for Raytheon as a project manager for NASA. He does not work for LANL.

As well, it seems that NOAA is getting involved in this, too.

plasmascience.net...

BTW, the gentleman in the first picture on that page, the one pointing to the chalkboard and talking to kids, is Dr. Eastman. So, we now see NOAA utilizing further the research conducted by NASA and promoting said research utilizing their own budget (not NASA's). Once again, very interesting.

So, i ask myself: "Self, why are we not seeing this in texts? Why do we still teach the provably outdated model?" The only reason i have is that we are being "mushroomed" (i.e: kept in a dark place and fed BS) or the cost of changing the current paradigm is too much (millions of books are rendered useless artifacts of failed science).

This is not just changing the "brontosaurus" to the "apatosaurus". This is a true and significant change to what almost all americans are taught.

There are many structures on the moon. Many of them appear to be electrical in origin, just based on a "stare and compare" alone. However, there are many other structures on the moon that point to something entirely different. The challene we have is explaining how they came to pass.

For further research, here is a fairly extensive listing of published research on the matter:

plasmascience.net...


John, i am curious what you think about the Itzhak crater anomoly and the supporting information from RetiredAFB pertaining to the alleged Apollo 20 video's on YouTube? To me, this is one example of something that is not electrically caused.

As well, the structure you ahve dubbed "Soul Tower" is another example of something that i cannot believe is natural. What it is? Who knows...

There is much in the way of artificiality on the moon, as well...just some of it has more mundane yet no less spectacular explanations.

What i am challenged with is figuring out why the "dark side" of the moon is more finely etched than the earth side. I wonder if it is an artifcact of electrical interplay with passing celestial bodies?

[edit on 29-6-2007 by bigfatfurrytexan]

Undo, the clementine images are so odd, so anomoloous, that i cannot really explain them very well.

I would say that the "glowies" could possibly be areas that are intensifying in electrical charge, and that it woul explain craters matching what Gene Shoemaker noted with the atomic craters similarity to "impact" craters.

Perhaps in times of high electrical excitement the glowies begin to erupt in electrical discharge?

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

There are many structures on the moon. Many of them appear to be electrical in origin, just based on a "stare and compare" alone. However, there are many other structures on the moon that point to something entirely different. The challene we have is explaining how they came to pass.

Thanks for your post bfft. This is a photo taken by Apollo 8 in an area near Joliet-Curie on the farside. Zorgon added some color and possible nomenclature but other than that it is an image straight from NASA published SP-246 "Lunar Photographs From Apollo's 8, 10. and 11. Would you say that this what appears to be a spaceport has been finely etched by water or etched by electricity?




Please don't forget ot try the 'stare and compare' methodology. Use the following uncolored and unlabeled photo:



Also I am curious as to whether or not you think it is an artifcact of electrical interplay with passing celestial bodies? Or do you believe that it is a totally natural shape?

Your input is highly valued on this thread.

The colored image notwithstanding, looks like a regular old crater rim to me. I'd have to see a "much" more detailed photo to call anything there anomalous.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

What i am challenged with is figuring out why the "dark side" of the moon is more finely etched than the earth side. I wonder if it is an artifcact of electrical interplay with passing celestial bodies?

Bigfatfurry texan you should know that there is no 'darkside' of the moon. All parts of the moon receive exactly the same amount of light but at different times. A common misconeption is that there is a 'darkside' of the moon but this is incorrect. There is a side that we on earth never see but in more informed circles it is referred to as the 'farside'.

Its possible that you already knew this and had a temporary loss of memory or 'senior moment' as I often do. The only reason I am quick to correct this "dark side" error is that many new to this thread might actually think that there is a 'dark side' and we don't want to knowingly promote any dis or misinformation.

So please forgive this correction if you already knew that there was no dark side. Your posts (although somewhat esoterically obscure) are highly valued.

Originally posted by Zenagain

The colored image notwithstanding, looks like a regular old crater rim to me. I'd have to see a "much" more detailed photo to call anything there anomalous.

Yes, I was too lazy to clip off the bottom of the uncolored photo. That is just a regular 'old crater'. You need to set your sights a little higher.

As far as getting a much more detailed photo from NASA I would appreciate your efforts. The photo is Apollo 8 AS-8-12-2209. When you order it please let them know that you want a photo without the 'ejecta'. Let them know if there is any obscuration to be done that you will do it yourself. Thanks for your help and good luck.

I know that there is no darkside. that is why placed it in quote. I do appreciate the clarification, however, as you are correct about newcomers to this thread possibly being misinformed by such oversights.

The reason is puzzles me is because i would expect the greatest arcing would occur on the nearside. What would the moon arc with to create the machined look you see in many spots.

Anomolies notwithstanding, it would seem to me that craters may not originate as we originaly thought. This premise might explain Aristarchus crater, as well. I do not know...that area is so anomolous as to render any opinions about it subject to change as new photo's and new analysis is presented. To be honest, your concept of it being related to energy production seems plausible.

I currently wonder if the concept of the moon being towed into place might explain the cratering. As the moon moves into different fields of electrical potential, the delicate balance of the solar systems magnetosphere is disrupted. This would explain the cratering, and sudden (and supposed) appearance of the moon 13,000 years ago...all the rest of the story matches in quite nicely from this point.

I do not mean to present any theory that would contradict the primary premise of this thread: there are strange structures on the moon, both ancient and contemporary. I just wanted to present an additional consideration if we are discussing the general geography of the moon.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Anomolies notwithstanding, it would seem to me that craters may not originate as we originaly thought. This premise might explain Aristarchus crater, as well.

Bigfatfurryytexan: I respectfully request that you quit referring to Aristarchus as a crater. It doesn't look like a crater. It doesn't walk like a crater. It doesn't quack like a crater. So it is not a crater.

Aristarchus is a dome shaped, intelligently fabricated building, out of which eminates a blue glow. Now I think that the blue glow indicates that radiation is reacting with air molecules. So Aristarchus is probably some type of reactor, maybe a fission reactor.

This is a NASA fabricated and totally false picture of Aristarchus:




This is what Aristarchus really looks like:



Now if you want to talk about electrical universes, hydro/electric etching
and arcing planets please be my guest. But I would respectfully request that you do not refer to Aristarchus as a crater, etched, arced or otherwise. It is a mad-made, intelligently fabricated, arch supported, dome-shaped building. Thanks.

The second comes from.....where?

I have this clementine image of ......well I'm not sure what crater it's supposed to be. It might be copernicus, but I don't think so!!! Why I don't think so is the dang thing is translucent! i'm being completely serious. you can see stuff under it, that runs away from the "crater" and you can see it through the walls of the crater (the terracing). some of it might be lava flow? some might be smoke trails. weirdest thing i've ever seen. but there are other things you can see through the "crater" floor.

what in the sam hill is it?


thestargates.com...

and here's a close-up of one of the things you can see through the "terracing" or crater wall:

Hey johnlear, I was wondering if you could proved more information about the picture:

What Aristarchus really looks like

I'm pretty new to the whole 'aliens on the moon' theories, but I must admit I am quite interested. One of the main sticking points for me is why there haven't been any more moon expeditions; surely for curiosities sake they could have done another manned mission? I'd really like to know more.

Originally posted by Zenagain

The second comes from.....where?

If you are talking about the reactor at Aristarchus and you are asking where it comes from, the answer is:

The civilization on the moon (I don't know the population but it has to be in the millions) is made up of beings from all other planets in our solar system.

I don't know what they do there but they have been there as long as the moon has been in orbit around the earth. Maybe longer.

The fact that the moon has a civilization in the millions is the biggest secret in the history of mankind. We are not supposed to know about it. I don't know why not. However, NASA, the Space Command, The U.S. Navy and the U.S. Air Force know all about it!

One of the keys to keeping the secret is to convince mankind that there is no air and no gravity and that it is dark all the time. This, of course is not true.

The moon is a really exciting place. Technology beyond our wildest dreams. Spectacular mountain ranges, colorful deserts, huge domes, constructs, buildings; as Neil Armstrong said in his speech at the White House on the 25th Anniversary of the landing of Apollo 11: " There are great ideas undiscovered; breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truths protective layers. There are places to go beyond belief."

Neil should know. He's been there.

Today is June 29, 2007 and tonight is the full moon. Do me a favor. The full moon comes up about 8pm. Go outside about 8:30 or 9. Look up at the moon and ask yourself, "Is there any possibility John Lear is correct? Could we really have been scammed by NASA? Could there really be a civilization up there?

Or is John Lear just a crazy old coot who's sipped way, way too much XO?

Aristarchus looks more to me like a holograph. It looks like it is blurry no matter when i look at it.

The picture from above (NASA) looks nothing like Aristarchus as represented in virtually every other photograph i have ever seen.

Honestly, the best description i can provide is it looks like it is covered in an elevated, opaque plastic film. This is likely due to the relative brightness of the area.

I tried to "tone it down" a little to get a better idea of the overall structure. Needless to say, i still stink at this so the effort is almost laughable...but i will show you anyway because it does provide a little extra detail to consider.






If you would rather not discuss matters that might be related to the electric universe until a later date (or different thread) then I will make a more concerted effort to direct conversation away from that direction.

Undo,

Man...those Clementine images sure are odd. If you convert it into a CMYK format and start removing color layers it looks even more odd.

This image is done from the raw image you provided. I just cropped it out and stretched it a little to make it about 200 pixels wide. There are many, many pixels of data loss or something on the image, and they didn't match up the negatives all that well. The pixel loss is most frustrating. But, why there is a bright yellow area in this crater is something i cannot explain. Possible evidence of touch up?



(edit...had to correct image tags, 3 times. )

[edit on 29-6-2007 by bigfatfurrytexan]

the yellow blob is, i'm guessing, where the color application was over saturated in that area, in the yellow spectrum. i've seen that more than once. not sure why it does that, though.