Is John Lear Spreading Disinfo?

Originally posted by yfxxx

Again, maybe you think my argument is nonsense, or irrelevant, or unintelligible. But it's not non-existent

.

Not at all, I just want to see your formula, thats all... John presented one that actually makes sense. You say he is wrong with words, but lets see the calculations according to your physics. Seems a simple enough request.

By the way, there have been lots of people who have claimed to have found things like "anti-gravity", "electrogravitics", etc., but so far, none of these claims could be verified by independent research institutions.

Try the search term "gravity shielding" instead of "anti gravity" and if what you say is true than why are the scientists at LANL and AFRL presenting papers on it? And Stargates as well?

Only time will tell, if Bushman has hit the jackpot on this one. If yes, we'll probably know within less than 10 years. If not, the guy and his website will simply fall into obscurity.

Well he did a very simple demonstration by plugging in a simole coil of #30 wire, 250 turns, into a wall socket... What happened was the coil levitated. Now this device as crude as it is burns out in a few minutes, but the point is it works. Anti gravity, Levitation, Gravity Sheilding, or electromagnetic repulsion from the Earths surface... call it what you like... it works

Boyd Bushman Lockheed





Edited to add...

You want a formula? Ok, that's easy

! I explained my point in words, pointed to links explaining the physics behind it in more detail, but admittedly, I haven't explicitly posted a formula for the location of Lagrangian Point L1 (your "neutral point") of the Earth-Moon system. So, here we go! From this page

en.wikipedia.org...

You have to point to a formula from wikipedia????



You have got to be kidding right? Surely an educated physics major as yourself would be able to grab a piece of chalk and fill a blackboard with equations in an instant...

Disappointing, very disappointing
:shk:

[edit on 5-5-2007 by zorgon]

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by kleverone

Maybe I am mistaken but is it not your claim that some people at NASA already know the moon has a breathable atmosphere? Or did you come up with this theory on your own, Please forgive me, as I am slightly confused on how you came to be the first and only person to believe the moon has a breathable atmosphere

Of course NASA knows. So do millions of others. We are talking about 'publically' here kleverone. That informatin is not in the public domain nor is it likely to be for many years to come. Thanks for your post.

So one second you say no one else on this earth knows, then you say millions of people know but they all work for NASA?
So what you are saying is that these millions of people are all currently keeping a huge secret from us? Do you see why you make it extremely difficult to believe anything you say when you seem to contradict yourself and then appear to go the extreme opposite to make it seem as though we should have just assumed that when you say no one else on this earth we should assume that it means you and the million or so at NASA. I'm not saying that you are lying John but you do make it very difficult to believe you.

Originally posted by zorgon
You have to point to a formula from wikipedia????

You have got to be kidding right? Surely an educated physics major as yourself would be able to grab a piece of chalk and fill a blackboard with equations in an instant...

Disappointing, very disappointing
:shk:

Easy there zorgon.....what's wrong with pointing the readers to a familiar source for the formula?

I'm an educated IT major, yet I still get the book out when I need to edit the firewall's iptables.

If he were right, and not a hoaxer, why is the info out there? I've said it before and I'll say it again...

If the most powerful organization in the world has a secret this big, it won't get out. If it does, the people leaking info would be gotten rid of, and any websites with the secrets posted would be shut down.

C'mon people, wake up.

Originally posted by kleverone

So one second you say no one else on this earth knows, then you say millions of people know but they all work for NASA?

Kleverone, you are welcome to post in this thread as everyone else is BUT....you are going to have to read my posts carefully. Nowhere did I say "millions of people know but they all work for NASA". NASA doesn't employ millions of people.

So what you are saying is that these millions of people are all currently keeping a huge secret from us?

That is correct.

Do you see why you make it extremely difficult to believe anything you say when you seem to contradict yourself and then appear to go the extreme opposite to make it seem as though we should have just assumed that when you say no one else on this earth we should assume that it means you and the million or so at NASA.

I am sure that there is a coherent thought in the above statement but I'm having trouble finding it. Perhaps you could rephrase it.

I'm not saying that you are lying John but you do make it very difficult to believe you.

This exact thought has been expressed many times on ATS in many different threads and I welcome your opinion.

Originally posted by johnlear
Kleverone, you are welcome to post in this thread as everyone else is BUT....you are going to have to read my posts carefully. Nowhere did I say "millions of people know but they all work for NASA". NASA doesn't employ millions of people.

No, but you did say that millions of people know, yet you claim that

I would be able to respond to this allegation a lot easier if I knew who was claiming the moon had a breathable atmosphere. Not only that but I would be delighted to learn that there is just ONE other nut-case on this planet that believes there is a breathable atmosphere on the moon. JUST ONE.

A few posts later you go on to say

Of course NASA knows. So do millions of others. We are talking about 'publically' here kleverone. That informatin is not in the public domain nor is it likely to be for many years to come. Thanks for your post.

So what are you saying? That you are the only nut-case on this planet who believes that there is a breathable atmosphere on the moon or that millions of people believe that there is?

And how can you believe something publically?

Did you mean to say that you are the only one on this earth who CLAIMS to believe publically? That would make a little more sense because right now you are contridicting yourself every other post. Or maybe I am not understanding you clearly. If this is this case, would you please clarify? Who are these other millions if you are the only one who believes this?

I am sure that there is a coherent thought in the above statement but I'm having trouble finding it. Perhaps you could rephrase it.

Sorry, does the above post explain it a little more clearly?





[edit on 6-5-2007 by kleverone]

Originally posted by kleverone

Did you mean to say that you are the only one on this earth who CLAIMS to believe publically?

Please correct me if I am in error. Do you know of anyone else claiming that there is a breathable atmosphere on the moon? I would be delighted to know his name! Thanks.

That would make a little more sense because right now you are contridicting yourself every other post.

The contradiction may be because I failed to thoroughly explain my position. Sorry.

Or maybe I am not understanding you clearly.

It may be my lack of a clear explanation.

If this is this case, would you please clarify? Who are these other millions if you are the only one who believes this?

I included the following who secretly know about the breathable atmosphere on the moon:

Those within NASA who have clearance to know.

Those who have worked in various mining operations and other projects that are taking place on the moon.

Those people who are indeginous to the moon

Please accept my apologies for not being very clear on this issue. Thanks.

Originally posted by johnlear
Please correct me if I am in error. Do you know of anyone else claiming that there is a breathable atmosphere on the moon? I would be delighted to know his name! Thanks.

Claiming? No I do not.

You are the only one.

Actually believing? I cannot say, I am curious to know who told you about the breathable atmosphere? (I am sure you have said many times, but for the sake of me doing a huge search, could you please tell me again)

Thanks John

Once again, not saying I disbelieve, but not saying I believe either.

Originally posted by yfxxx

You want a formula? Ok, that's easy

! I explained my point in words, pointed to links explaining the physics behind it in more detail, but admittedly, I haven't explicitly posted a formula for the location of Lagrangian Point L1 (your "neutral point") of the Earth-Moon system. So, here we go! From this page

That was the formula to calculate L1, your "neutral point" on the direct earth-moon line. Because R (earth-moon distance) is not constant, the distance of L1 from the moon's center varies between ~36,100 and ~40,300 miles (for distance from moon surface, subtract ~1,080 miles).

You see, a "neutral point" of ~38,000 miles from the moon is perfectly explainable using the "public" values for the moon's mass (and thus surface gravity). And to say it for about the tenth time: The fact, that Apollo reported their "neutral point" still further out (~43,000 miles) can be explained, because Apollo didn't always travel on the direct earth-moon line.

Mr. Lear, I know that you think that I don't have a point, regardless of what I say. Therefore the above calculation was meant for the benefit of those who have not yet made up their mind on the issue.

OK. Lets use your neutral point of 38,000 miles and plug that figure into the Bullialdus/Newton law of inverse-square. Remember that we are using "1" as the gravity for earth. The result of the Bullialdus/Newton equation will be the moons gravity in proportion to th earth's or a percentage of 1. The advantage of using the Bullialdus/Newton law of inverse-square is that we don't have to assume the mass of the moon. We are getting our answer with a number that is proportional to the gravity of earth which we are assuming to be '1':

Re = radius of the Earth = 3,960 miles
Rm = radius of the Moon = 1,080 miles
X = distance from the Earth’s center to the neutral
Point = 201,000 miles
Y = Distance from the Moon’s center to the neutral point = 38,000 miles
Ge = Earth’s surface gravity
Gm = Moons surface gravity

Since the forces of attraction of the Earth and the Moon are equal at the neutral point, the inverse-square law yields: (please consider all 2's as the symbol for 'squared'. I can't figure out how to hypertext in this post.)

Ge (Re2/X2) = Gm(Rm2/Y2)

Gm/Ge = Re2Y2/Rm2X2

= (3,960)2 (38,000)2/(1,080)2 (201,000)2

= .55

We still come out with the moon’s gravity being over one half of earths gravity and being nowhere near one sixth.

In order for the moons gravity to be one sixth of earth's, the neutral point would have to be 24,000 miles or less and according to von Braun and many of the astronauts comments both to mission control and in books written about the Apollo Mission that is not he case.

Perhaps you have another suggestion?

Originally posted by johnlear
The contradiction may be because I failed to thoroughly explain my position. Sorry.

I'm pretty sure that is the case, no problem
I just wanted to clarify and make sure I wasn't putting words in your mouth or misunderstanding you.

What you were trying to say was that you are the only person Claiming publically that there is breathable atmosphere on the moon, not necessarily the only one who believes it, but the only person who publically claims it to be true. Gotcha

And lets clarify, you claim it to be breathable, but for a short amount of time? Is this correct?

How is that possible?

Originally posted by kleverone

I am curious to know who told you about the breathable atmosphere? (I am sure you have said many times, but for the sake of me doing a huge search, could you please tell me again)

Nobody had to tell me what should be obvous. If vegetation thrives and people live and work on the moon there has to be at least a thin atmosphere. Of course there are huge domes that cover many areas of the moon and that is because there is not quite enough atmosphere to stay out on the lunar surface for very long.

What is amazing about the moon is the difference between the near side and far side. The near side is purposely a barren, someplaces mountainous, someplaces desert like, apparently void of any life, surface. The purpose of this is so that your regular earth person looks up and thinks, "Can't be anything up there." Whereas on the far side is a civilization who has built amazing artifacts, constructs, machinery, buildings, cities and who conduct amazing and different other operations totally and completely hidden from your regular earth person.

All for one specifc, all consuming and very important reason.

And I'll be darned if I can figure out what that reason is. Unless its money. But surely no one could be so greedy.

Originally posted by johnlear
Nobody had to tell me what should be obvous. If vegetation thrives and people live and work on the moon there has to be at least a thin atmosphere.

Ok I'll bite. For the sake of argument, who says that the vegetation on the moons needs atmosphere or even carbon dioxide for that matter to thrive?
You are now referering to Alien life and therefore cannot be bound by the terms and conditons of vegetation here on earth.

Of course there are huge domes that cover many areas of the moon and that is because there is not quite enough atmosphere to stay out on the lunar surface for very long.

Wouldn't the atmosphere be visible from earth with a telescope? What is the ratio of oxygen to carbon dioxide? How can you make such assumptions without any type of control variable to make comparisons? It seem to me that you are assuming that since you thought you saw plant life that it must need atmosphere? This is not earth we are discussing so how could the same rules apply?

Originally posted by kleverone

Wouldn't the atmosphere be visible from earth with a telescope?

That is what current mainstream science would have you believe. I disagree.

What is the ratio of oxygen to carbon dioxide? How can you make such assumptions without any type of control variable to make comparisons? It seem to me that you are assuming that since you thought you saw plant life that it must need atmosphere? This is not earth we are discussing so how could the same rules apply?

Thanks for the post kleverone. I particularly enjoy responding to those who have done their homework. Please come back now. H'eah?

Originally posted by zorgon
Well he did a very simple demonstration by plugging in a simole coil of #30 wire, 250 turns, into a wall socket... What happened was the coil levitated. Now this device as crude as it is burns out in a few minutes, but the point is it works. Anti gravity, Levitation, Gravity Sheilding, or electromagnetic repulsion from the Earths surface... call it what you like... it works

Well, that's great news then. I'm looking forward to see practical applications of these phantastic new technologies emerge in the next years. And since Mr. Bushman apparently didn't keep his work a secret, I'm sure all leading aerospace and high-tech corporations are already very busy developing these applications.

On the other hand, let's just assume that such applications do not come forward within the next, say, 20 years. And that Mr. Bushman is not recognized as the genius he is. I hope you will not be too disappointed in this case .

You have got to be kidding right? Surely an educated physics major as yourself would be able to grab a piece of chalk and fill a blackboard with equations in an instant...

Disappointing, very disappointing

Come on !! Of course I could have derived that formula from more basic principles, but for what purpose?! The Wikipedia article has external links and references for anyone who wants to know exactly what's going on. So if you think the formula is BS, feel free to find (and point out) the error in its derivation.

Regards
yf

Originally posted by MrPenny
Easy there zorgon.....what's wrong with pointing the readers to a familiar source for the formula?
I'm an educated IT major, yet I still get the book out when I need to edit the firewall's iptables.

LOL nothing wrong at all, I just expected that in this case a more reliable book would better serve the cause... say something from a university, or MIT's physhic department. Wikipedia is a great source of instant info and I use it myself as the material is not under copyright, but I back it up with the original source.

Anyone can edit wiki... say what they want and I am sure that you do not use wikipedia when you "edit the firewall's iptables."

The point is John provided facts figures and formulas and yfxxx is claiming his math is faulty... yet the best he can come back with is a quote from wikipedia?

Come on surely I could reasonably expect an "expert" in the field to not hesitate to provide a mathematical rebuttal and be eager to do so, rather than to resort to name calling and ridicule of anyone who just might think John is on to something

BTW MIT and those universities have all kinds of formulas for anti gravity, gravity shielding warp drives and even star gates...

[edit on 6-5-2007 by zorgon]

Originally posted by Uplifted

If the most powerful organization in the world has a secret this big, it won't get out. If it does, the people leaking info would be gotten rid of, and any websites with the secrets posted would be shut down.

Not if the intent is to attempt a controlled release of info heading towards disclosure. This is what I believe and its shared by many who are with Pegasus.

If we are right, you will see more and more info leaking out in the next few years. Britain just followed France in releasing their UFO files...

If Werner von Braun was right about "America's four manufactured enemies.."
(Russia, Terrorists, Asteroids and Alien Invasion) to get Americans to shell out those tax dollars to arm space, you bet disclosure is on the way...

Russia - Been there done that they never were our "enemy"
Terrorists - read the daily news... WMD's uh huh...
Asteroids - been a LOT of talk about those lately, with NASA exploding a craft on a comet - science? or testing their marksmanship? That really was a big secondary explosion..
Alien Invasion - well you have heard a lot of how bad some of these ET's are over the last 50 years... won't take much to convince Americans that they are attacking...

So get them bucks ready folks...

On a side note... I have proof that people inside NASA are watching my website...

Originally posted by johnlear
That is what current mainstream science would have you believe. I disagree.

Well, I'm gonna have to go with mainstream science on this one, no offense

Thanks for the post kleverone. I particularly enjoy responding to those who have done their homework. Please come back now. H'eah?

I respect your opinion, but I believe amount of atmosphere to sustain life longer than a few seconds would be visible from earth, luckily for me, truth is self-evident and I do not need someone to explain to me why the atmosphere would or would not be observable.

Regardless, as I stated earlier, said atmosphere may or may not be conducive to said vegetation but to assume such vegetation requires atmosphere to grow may be incorrect. Or maybe not

Either way, John on a personal note....I hope your right

Originally posted by zorgon
The point is John provided facts figures and formulas and yfxxx is claiming his math is faulty...

No, I'm claiming that his physics is faulty! But obviously you (let alone John Lear) didn't understand this at all. So be it, I certainly can't force you .

So, if it makes you happy, you can think of me as a closed-minded, arrogant and idiotic self-proclaimed "scientist", who doesn't know **** about his science and therefore has to resort to "name calling and ridicule". I couldn't care less . And for the record: The failure of you (or anyone else) to actually show where my arguments are wrong is noted !

Regards
yf

Originally posted by kleverone

Well, I'm gonna have to go with mainstream science on this one, no offense

The problems with main stream science are:

1) put 3 scientists into a room and you will have 4 theories...
2) As soon as one scientists discovers a radical principle, there will be 50 that try to shoot it down
3) scientific truth only lasts as long as the next discovery...

Mainstream science is about as stable as the San Andreas fault

Originally posted by yfxxx

No, I'm claiming that his physics is faulty! But obviously you (let alone John Lear) didn't understand this at all.

Even physics uses mathematics when writing formulas... DOH!

And I have no opinion of your personal beliefs or expertise level, merely that you do not make your case