Is John Lear Spreading Disinfo?

Originally posted by Rren

Where can I find the Apollo astronauts' and/or the Houston Space Tracking Center's comments that the Apollo crafts crossed L1 at ~43k miles out and not ~30k miles out?

Werner von Braun, 1969 edition of Rocketry & Space Travel, Thomas Y. Cromwell, New York.

Encyclopedia Britannica 1973 edition “Space Exploration”

We Reach The Moon, John Noble Wilford

Footprints On The Moon 1969 Writers & Editors Associated Press

Last Man On The Moon, Eugene Cernan

You're not claiming any inside sources here, correct?

No.

This is in the category of 'public domain stuff most folks don't realize is out there,' I assume.

Yes. They call it 'hidden in plain sight."

Why hide the fact of a more massive/dense moon?

A denser moon would mean the moon has more gravity. More gravity means an atmosphere. An atmosphere means people live there. All of that means NASA has been lying through their teeth for almost 50 years.

What (implications) am I missing here?

We are living a lie.

If you were correct, Mr. Lear, what would change?

If I am correct it won't make the slightest difference. Nothing would change.

Besides the obvious i.e., Luna is more dense than we thought? Didn't Apollo 8 pass L1 at ~30k miles, as it should of, and was predicted too?

Apollo 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, all passed the neutral point at 43,495 miles. That is even if they they had extra sandwiches on board. Even if you hurled the Titanic there the neutral point would be the same.

Originally posted by Rren

www.ucolick.org...
I'm not seeing anything when I search that date through their site. Do you have a link to the image?

As John said the originals are on the John Lear moon thread page 23... and they are also available from our website...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you go to this link below you can order lick photos but you have to write them, they are not online

www.ucolick.org...

Originally posted by johnlear

Werner von Braun, 1969 edition of Rocketry & Space Travel, Thomas Y. Cromwell, New York.

Encyclopedia Britannica 1973 edition “Space Exploration”

We Reach The Moon, John Noble Wilford

Footprints On The Moon 1969 Writers & Editors Associated Press

Last Man On The Moon, Eugene Cernan

Found another one: Time Magazine, July 25, 1969 p.14 "The Moon-A Giant Leap Forward":

"At a point 43,495 miles from the moon, lunar gravity exerted a force equal to the gravity of the Earth, then some 200,00 miles distant."

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
This seems like the same concept of technology as Searle and Carr.

Very interesting.

Yes it is especially since LANL and the Department of Energy are involved...

The H3 numbers you give. Is that using the generator you posted (the Searle machine), or using other means more mundane?

More mundane... the figures are arrived at from an article by Guy Cramer, one of the three people who legally own the mineral rights to the moon, and have done so for over 25 years...

Mineral Data inc H3
landoflegends.us...

Who owns the rights..
landoflegends.us...

BTW Guy's company is into stealth technology, particularly camouflage of big buildings and government instalations... recent project was HARRP

And wait till you read about Dr Resnick one of the other two... (The third one I cannot find anything on save his name)

The Searle machine would be self sustaining at a certain point, beyond which it actually generates electricity rather than using it.

Yes, i think of the Searle machine for three things:

1. Antigrav
2. Power generation
3. Air Conditioning (LOL)

The best part of number 3 is that you have posted pics of such a device with ice chunks on it, right?

A few years ago i started thinking about UFO's, and how they would generate electricity. I am an ultra layperson, so don't expect any sophistication.

But it seemed to me that if you got going fast enough you could create a gyroscopic effect. If you put magnets and coils in place along the axis of a verticalaxle, you could generate electricity. I didn't think about the source of this electricity being from static electricity in the near vicinity...but it makes perfect sense, thus it drops temperature, right?

It is amazing...I have talked to many people who have conceptualized something like this without prior knowledge of research done on this matter. it seems so simple and it is amazing that we haven't done it, to be honest.

I guess we have, and continue to do so.

Wasn't there a big experiment in Russia in which this device created a purple mist in the area?

Originally posted by johnlear


A denser moon would mean the moon has more gravity. More gravity means an atmosphere.

Only an atmosphere could account for this alleged 'missing mass'? That doesn't track... at all.

An atmosphere means people live there.

How so?

Apollo 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, all passed the neutral point at 43,495 miles.

I'm assuming the evidence for that is in one of the sources you've cited. Thanks, by the way. I'll see if I can get a hold of those books tomorrow. Who turned you on to this stuff originally?

That is even if they they had extra sandwiches on board. Even if you hurled the Titanic there the neutral point would be the same.

I never claimed that the velocity of a craft, or its mass, changed the position of the 'neutral point.' As well as I'm following this (not saying much): You're arguing as if the solar system is static, and not taking into account the inertia created by all that mass moving through space. However, I'm not - in any way, shape or form - qualified to argue mathematics/orbital mechanics/astro physics with anybody.

The one guy who appears to have been so qualified, yfxxx, doesn't think he can explain it any better. I thought he made sense, but I will check out the sources you cite. Thanks again.

On Topic:

I don't believe you're intentionally spreading dis-info. I'm not prepared to call you a liar (that's basically the question here, right guys?) You're certainly a good sport to even reply...

Regards.

(edit)yz to yfxxx

[edit on 2-5-2007 by Rren]

Originally posted by zorgon
What the heck does mass have to do with the neutral point? And how can the nuetral point be variable?

Earth exerts a certain amount of gravity pull. Last I checked this does not change from day to day... if it did there would be havok down here. I therefore think its safe to assume this holds true for the Moon or any other body in space.

At some point in space between the Earth and the Moon there is a point where the pull form both sides is equal... that is the neutral point... this does not change... you don't need physics to understand this... If it changed it would change the orbital mechanics of the solar system.

(...)

So lets have a straight anser just for once. A lot of minds in here and a lot of differnt distances...

THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE, or there would be no stable planetary orbits anywhere

There is no single "neutral point", but there is what you may call a "neutral curve": A line, on which Mr. Lear's "neutral point" definition holds true. It connects Lagrangian points L4 and L5, passing the direct earth-moon line at L1. For a longer explanation, plus a very rough image of this "curve", see my post at

www.abovetopsecret.com... .

Because of the shape of the curve, and because the Apollo trajectories didn't follow a straight line between earth and moon, you can see that the actual "neutral point", as measured by the craft's accelerometers, must be further away from the moon than L1. A figure of ~43,000 miles doesn't look unreasonable.

All this can be explained by ordinary textbook physics. Just because a scientific illiterate like Mr. Lear can't grasp it doesn't make it false.

@Rren:

Originally posted by Rren
The one guy who appears to have been so qualified, yfxxx, doesn't think he can explain it any better.

I'm honestly sorry about that. I'm not a teacher, and I guess it's beginning to show . However, that doesn't invalidate the science behind it, so please don't use (I know you didn't) my inability to adequately explain the issue to a general audience as an argument in favour of pseudo-scientific "crackpot theories". Thank you

Regards
yf

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
But it seemed to me that if you got going fast enough you could create a gyroscopic effect. If you put magnets and coils in place along the axis of a verticalaxle, you could generate electricity.

I have only one thing to say about that...

The German Toy Makers know its simple...

Wasn't there a big experiment in Russia in which this device created a purple mist in the area?

google Russian Scalar Energy Weapons...

and get back to me

[edit on 2-5-2007 by zorgon]

Originally posted by Rren

Only an atmosphere could account for this alleged 'missing mass'? That doesn't track... at all.

Only an atmosphere? I am not following you. The moon is much denser than is generally believed. The density is what contributes to its gravity being 64% (or higher) of earths. Gravity holds an atmosphere around a moon or planet. The vegetation on the far side of the moon contributes, in part, to making the atmopshere breathable. The vegetation is visible on several of the far side pictures I have posted.

An atmosphere means people live there.

How so?

People like air to breath. If there is no air, there are no people. LOL!

What I should have said was "Photos of huge mining operations, photos of cities, photos of a space port, photos of huge artifacts means someone lives there.

I'm assuming the evidence for that is in one of the sources you've cited. Thanks, by the way. I'll see if I can get a hold of those books tomorrow. Who turned you on to this stuff originally?

If you are talking about us being on the moon, Bob Lazar mentioned that he had read briefings that we had bases both on the moon and Mars. Then I met the one government insider who was in charge of building mining machines that were sent to the moon. He was the one who told me the population of Mars was 600 million. (But WE know that only microbes live there, right? Right? I mean NASA wouldn't lie to us would they? Would they?)

The one guy who appears to have been so qualified, yfxxx, doesn't think he can explain it any better. I thought he made sense, but I will check out the sources you cite. Thanks again.

No problem. Yfxxx does an excellent job here. I appreciate his input because he really knows 'mainstream' science. For those who are not ready to accept the truth or for reasons of their own just don't want to hear it, yfxxx is their salvation. He is believable!

On Topic:

I don't believe you're intentionally spreading dis-info. I'm not prepared to call you a liar (that's basically the question here, right guys?) You're certainly a good sport to even reply...

Like someone said, "If Lear is spreading disinfo, its the screwiest disinfo I ever read. I mean, who's going to believe it? And why?"

Originally posted by johnlear
No problem. Yfxxx does an excellent job here. I appreciate his input because he really knows 'mainstream' science. For those who are not ready to accept the truth or for reasons of their own just don't want to hear it, yfxxx is their salvation. He is believable!

Huh?? You don't believe anything I say, yet state that I'm "believable"? Does this make sense?? Probably just sarcasm from you !

Anyway, I never intended to be the "salvation" for anyone!

Regards
yf

Hello Mr. Lear,

Look, if the Apollo astronauts and/or tracking stations agree with your numbers, I can't see how this is even debateable; you win, as far as I'm concerned. I guess I'll see soon enough.

For anybody else interested in this:

Werner von Braun, 1969 edition of Rocketry & Space Travel, Thomas Y. Cromwell, New York.

Having a little trouble finding this one, but I haven't tried all that hard yet.

Encyclopedia Britannica 1973 edition “Space Exploration”

Well I can find the entire set, used, on Amazon for about $100. I'm not there yet (spending a hundred bucks to confirm JL's ideas) but it anybody's interested, you can get the '73 Britannica (23-Volume Set) here. Cool to have either way... perhaps I can find just the single book somewhere. (I've got Wilford and Cernan's books on the way for now,... that's a start.)

We Reach The Moon, John Noble Wilford

Now that's what I'm talking about. From $1.25 (used) at Amazon.com

Footprints On The Moon 1969 Writers & Editors Associated Press

Found this one, from $1.97 (used) at Amazon.com I didn't get this one yet though... .

Last Man On The Moon, Eugene Cernan

This one looks like a great book, regardless if it supports what you say it does, or not. From $4.50 (used) at Amazon.com

Found another one: Time Magazine, July 25, 1969 p.14 "The Moon-A Giant Leap Forward":

$4.99 on Ebay.

Was looking for something new/different to read. Ima learn some space program history, cool. Thanks again Mr. Lear.

Originally posted by johnlear

Only an atmosphere? I am not following you. The moon is much denser than is generally believed. The density is what contributes to its gravity being 64% (or higher) of earths. Gravity holds an atmosphere around a moon or planet.

I get it, Mr. Lear. There's many ways to explain why Luna's mass could be greater than we think (all tied to various formation theories.) It makes no sense, to me, that "they" would hide this information from us (i.e., the actual mass of Luna) because if we knew, we'd know that there would, therefore, have to be an atmosphere there to explain it. Doesn't track. Savy?

"They" could still hide the civilization/mining/vegetation/etc, while telling us that the material that comprises our moon is denser than originally thought (It's currently believed to be mostly comprised of ancient Earth's crust, ripped off during a collision between proto-Earth and a similiar sized proto-planet.) It could be heavier via a hundred different scenarios, none of which would have to, necessarily, support your hypothesis, no?

See wiki's Giant impact hypothesis page, which also goes into Lagrange point issues/evidence.

The vegetation on the far side of the moon contributes, in part, to making the atmopshere breathable. The vegetation is visible on several of the far side pictures I have posted.

C'mon now, "clearly is visible"? I assumes it rains on the moon then (all the way 'round too), correct? Where are the examples of wind and rain erosion (lakes, rivers, streams, oceans, ice, etc.)? Your average amateur astronomer should be able to see this for themselves from their backyards (includind the 'twinkle' of stars viewed, from Earth, through Luna's atmosphere.) Assuming all these weather phenomena don't only occur on the far side, of course. The 'twinkle' would be there regardless though.

What I should have said was "Photos of huge mining operations, photos of cities, photos of a space port, photos of huge artifacts means someone lives there.

Fair enough; Agreed... should said photos show what you say they show. In my opinion, they don't come close. I'd wager you've heard that once, or a hundred times before though, eh?

Then I met the one government insider who was in charge of building mining machines that were sent to the moon. He was the one who told me the population of Mars was 600 million.

Now that's very interesting. Could you elaborate on that?

No problem. Yfxxx does an excellent job here. I appreciate his input because he really knows 'mainstream' science. For those who are not ready to accept the truth or for reasons of their own just don't want to hear it, yfxxx is their salvation. He is believable!

Agreed, he's helped me to understand the issue better, no doubt. Is there such a thing as alternative (versus mainstream) maths and orbital mechanics(Newtonian physics)? This is hard science here, the Laws of motion and all that.

Like someone said, "If Lear is spreading disinfo, its the screwiest disinfo I ever read. I mean, who's going to believe it? And why?"

Lol. If I thought you were making a buck of this stuff, I'd have stopped paying attention after page 2 (or so) of the 'Ask John Lear Questions' thread. You're obviously an intelligent, witty, affable fellow. Also, as I understand it, you don't need to run some BS serpo style scam to make some coin. So, I'm as interested in why you believe what you do, as I am what you believe. (like I said you don't strike me as a charlatan, con artist or liar) I doubt if, of all the names you've been called in your life, "typical" was amongst them.


Have a good one,
~Rren

(edit)and to an

[edit on 2-5-2007 by Rren]

Originally posted by Rren
I get it, Mr. Lear. There's many ways to explain why Luna's mass could be greater than we think (all tied to various formation theories.) It makes no sense, to me, that "they" would hide this information from us (i.e., the actual mass of Luna) because if we knew, we'd know that there would, therefore, have to be an atmosphere there to explain it. Doesn't track. Savy?

The point is, we know the mass of the Moon, there is no need to guess or estimate it from spacecraft trajectories! We can calculate the Moon's mass simply by carefully observing the motion of Earth and Moon:

www.mathpages.com...

So, if the Moon had any other mass than the one quoted in all textbooks, the "conspiracy masters" would have had to bribe (or kill) hundreds of astronomers in all parts of the world for many many centuries! Now that would be a Grand Conspriracy if I've ever seen one!

Agreed, he's helped me to understand the issue better, no doubt.

Thank you!

Is there such a thing as alternative (versus mainstream) maths and orbital mechanics(Newtonian physics)?

There are no serious alternatives. As for nonsense ideas, there are probably quite a number around, including Mr. Lear's "calculations".

Regards
yf

Originally posted by yfxxx
The point is, we know the mass of the Moon, there is no need to guess or estimate it from spacecraft trajectories! We can calculate the Moon's mass simply by carefully observing the motion of Earth and Moon:

www.mathpages.com...

Got it. My point was only, that the moon's composition and mass fit with what we'd expect from the 'impact theory,' true? Further, if it was more massive than thought (bear with me) an atmosphere would not be the likely reason why.

Do you not think it odd, assuming JL has it right, that all of the Apollo craft found L1 about 20k miles off from where it "should" be? Regardless of the math, we've been there with several crafts now...


I'm guessing he's reading into something that isn't there (my assumption, of course), or these distances can't be verified as easily (straightforward) as he claims. Or I'm, still, completely missing the point here.

So, if the Moon had any other mass than the one quoted in all textbooks, the "conspiracy masters" would have had to bribe (or kill) hundreds of astronomers in all parts of the world for many many centuries! Now that would be a Grand Conspriracy if I've ever seen one!

That's what has me, as a layman, stuck right now. It makes no sense, any way I approach it.

Thank you!

One of the reasons I come to ATS is because of members like you. In just about any discipline I can find somebody formally schooled to discuss ideas with. In my real life, not as likely. And I've never met a 'John Lear' ever, lol. So, thank you both.


Regards,
~Rren

Originally posted by Rren
Got it. My point was only, that the moon's composition and mass fit with what we'd expect from the 'impact theory,' true?

Composition: basically yes. Mass: the "impact theory" doesn't make any predictions.

Further, if it was more massive than thought (bear with me) an atmosphere would not be the likely reason why.

Correct.

Do you not think it odd, assuming JL has it right, that all of the Apollo craft found L1 about 20k miles off from where it "should" be? Regardless of the math, we've been there with several crafts now...

L1 was not "found" at all by Apollo. And the "neutral point" (equivalence to L1 on a non-direct trajectory) was exactly where it should be. Mr. Lear's calculations are invalid.

I'm guessing he's reading into something that isn't there (my assumption, of course), or these distances can't be verified as easily (straightforward) as he claims. Or I'm, still, completely missing the point here.

Actually, Mr. Lear "calculates" where L1 should be, using the textbook values for the moon's mass. He arrives at a distance of ~24,000 miles from the moon. He knows that the real L1 is much further away from that. There are two options: either Mr.Lear's calculations are wrong, or the mass of the moon is different. Now, every physicist (or everyone else who knows how to calculate forces, Lagrangians etc. in the earth-moon system), who looks at Mr. Lear's calculations, sees immediately that they are invalid. He used certain formulas in a context where they don't apply in the way he uses them. If the correct formulas are used to calculate L1, it turns out that it's exactly where it should be, using the textbook value for the moon's mass.

Of course, Mr. Lear doesn't believe me, when I (or any other physicist) say that his calculations are invalid. He also ignores the fact that the moon's mass can be obtained independently of measurements of Lagrangian points.

So, if the Moon had any other mass than the one quoted in all textbooks, the "conspiracy masters" would have had to bribe (or kill) hundreds of astronomers in all parts of the world for many many centuries! Now that would be a Grand Conspriracy if I've ever seen one!

That's what has me, as a layman, stuck right now. It makes no sense, any way I approach it.

You hit the nail on the head. It simply doesn't make sense.

One of the reasons I come to ATS is because of members like you. In just about any discipline I can find somebody formally schooled to discuss ideas with. In my real life, not as likely. And I've never met a 'John Lear' ever, lol. So, thank you both.

You're welcome!

Regards
yf

Originally posted by yfxxx

Actually, Mr. Lear "calculates" where L1 should be, using the textbook values for the moon's mass. He arrives at a distance of ~24,000 miles from the moon. He knows that the real L1 is much further away from that. yf

Now just a darn minute here. I have always said the neutral point is at 43, 495 miles from the moon and I use Werner von Braun and the Apollo astronauts as a source of information. I make no calculations of the moon's mass. None.

I would respectfully request a clarification or retraction of your statement above yfxxx. Thanks.

Originally posted by Rren
This is hard science here, the Laws of motion and all that.

And hard science is the hardest thing to topple... but there are times when that happens..

Boyd Bushman of Lockheed Martin drops two stones off a high tower... He gets any man off the street to bring him the one that hits the ground first...

Guess what? One hits the ground first... so much for Galileo and Newton

Here is a good one... from NASA

"Numerous space physics and plasma theories are being revised or overturned by data gathered during the Tethered Satellite System Reflight (TSS-1R) experiments on Space Shuttle Columbia’s STS-75 mission last March."

So it seems even NASA says old school science is out the window LOL

[edit on 2-5-2007 by zorgon]

Originally posted by johnlear

[....book list....]

Got em all including Time and a whole set of Life magazines. Thanks for the list John

Found a big old copy of Lunar Orbiter too

I don't recall seeing John provide any calculations or formulas for his 43k. I believe that this is a misstatement. I could be wrong, and just missed it...but like John says, he is referencing texts from 64, as well as Von Braun. I think that, given your position, you would be best to debunk him by showing how Von Braun was wrong, or that Mr. Lear misinterpreted the information that he read?

I mean, in the end, all you are doing is arguing with a lay person who is using a very, very respected physicists own statements. Your argument, then, is not with John, but with Werner Von Braun. Since that arguement would take place posthumously, you may find more ease in disproving him, right? He isn't here to defend his own statements?

Just a thought. It would seem that in your fervor to debunk John you are starting to misrepresent information. I am sure it isn't purposeful, but a negative perception like that could leave a lasing impression on the audience. Credibility in any debate is important...so i am simply providing insight and advice, yfxxx, if I may that is.

Originally posted by yfxxx
Huh??

You don't believe anything I say, yet state that I'm "believable"? Does this make sense??

Certainly it does make sense... in the context John said it... giving those who choose to hide their heads in the sand a source they can point at and say "See I told you so yfzzz says so

Sheesh its so simple...

:shk:

Originally posted by Rren

The one guy who appears to have been so qualified, yfxxx, doesn't think he can explain it any better. I thought he made sense, but I will check out the sources you cite. Thanks again.

Yes appears to be qualified...

Perhaps for the record you could state those qualifications so we may know what your expertise is yfxxx? Thank you, it would make it easier to judge your position

Originally posted by Rren

See wiki's Giant impact hypothesis page, which also goes into Lagrange point issues/evidence.

I wonder why people rely so heavily on the opinions and evidence presented in Wikipedia... Afterall ANYONE can write or edit just about anthing they want so long as they provide appropriate sources.. High schools in Nevada will not allow kids to use ANY material from Wiki for this reason...

We had one case in another thread that we showed someone that a fact was indeed in print, pointed to the Wikipedia page that had it and posted this in the thread... A couple weeks later the reference was edited out..

Fortunately Wiki does keep past edits so I have the two copies and since did find other sources to confirm the fact...

The point is since then I KNOW I cannot trust anything in Wiki that cannot be backed up by a more reliable source