Is John Lear Spreading Disinfo?

YES! However, this oppinion deserves some qualification.

While I believe most of John's "Pet Thoeries" are really wide of the truth, and some are plain crap, I'm not sure if John is out to spread stuff he believes is wrong. I bet in John's mind, most of it makes sense.

Case in point: Mr. Lear is despratly trying to prove in another thread that the Call Sign for Groom Lake's air traffic control tower has changed. The Fact is that they don't change the call sign for ground stations. I tried to explain to him that he was mistaken in his assumption, but he refuses to hear it.

Then there's Dulce Facilty. John is so eager to prove there's a secret Alien base on the Navajo reservation that he even accuseed my adopted uncle of lying as to discreted the fact that I had an eye-witness, who grew up on the reservation telling me there's no base there.

Then there's John's insistence that not only is there an F-19, but that the people who built it also got to see the F-117 before it flew the first time (Sorry John, SAP's don't work that way). To add to that, he believe the Air Force leaked the reports of a crashed MiG as a cover story (Real Black Projects like Red Hat aren't use to cover other projects).

John's Not a bad guy, his Big theoies just don't hold water when it counts!

Tim

Originally posted by Ghost01

John's Not a bad guy, his Big theoies just don't hold water when it counts!

Tim

Thanks Tim for your well thought out opinion. Your sources are truly awesome and your conclusions sublime. You are appreciated!

What no one has addressed yet is why is John the ONLY person everyone singles out to declare a "disinfo agent" Many of the topics he discusses are all over ATS presented by other posters...

So

1) are you all saying that all these other posters have been influenced by John to form their opinions?

2) Non of the other posters that start threads on Dulce, Planetary Anomalies, Weird X Planes etc have any independent thought... its all because John has influenced their thinking?

If that is the case... seems John has been very successful in his "mission" and all you guys making "John Lear" threads are playing into his hands and keeping the publicity going...

Jolly good show!



Any search on any of the topics John discusses here at ATS yields many similar threads, so why are those people not labeled "disinfo agents" ?

Originally posted by zorgon

Any search on any of the topics John discusses here at ATS yields many similar threads, so why are those people not labeled "disinfo agents" ?

In 6th grade i was 6'1" tall and weighed about 275. I beat up many a person who wanted to see how far they could push their luck and try to be the proverbial "David". I liked to keep things peaceful...but "gallo" always has its way with young boys.

Since the topic of "moon gravity" came up a while ago on this thread, I can't help linking to my posting elsewhere ...


www.abovetopsecret.com...


Looks as if Mr. Lear has to "adjust" his moon conspiracy theory a bit

Regards
yf

Originally posted by yfxxx
Looks as if Mr. Lear has to "adjust" his moon conspiracy theory a bit

Interesting thread you linked to...

"I'll rewrite the formula a bit..."

Yup always a good way out... if it don't fit rewrite it "a bit"

"m = 1.07 * 10^23 kg [Note: This is different from the "accepted" value of m = 0.735 * 10^23 kg, but it's not that far off, either...

So more than 25% is not that far off? Man if you were working for NASA they would miss the Moon altogether

"I have pointed out in the past, that the Apollo "neutral point", reported by von Braun et.al. to be at 43,495 miles from the moon, is not exactly the L1 distance..."

So you agree that 43,495 is correct and that L1 is incorrect... hmmmm

"So, Mr. Lear, according to a formula, which you said was correct, and using a Lagrange point, which you said was correct, we get a moon gravity of 24% of earth's!. "

So now YOUR figures are saying its 24% or 1 quarter of Earth?

Man I gotta tell ya, for a scientist you change your figures a lot...

Maybe if you tinker the numbers a bit more you will come up with the correct answer of 65% eventually

:shk:

[edit on 16-5-2007 by zorgon]

Originally posted by zorgon
"I'll rewrite the formula a bit..."

Yup always a good way out... if it don't fit rewrite it "a bit"

Excuse me if I used "rewrite" misleadingly (English is not my first language). I meant that I changed the representation of the formula, so that it better fits what I want to discuss. Specfically, the formula as presented in the original paper expressed the position of L1 as "distance from earth", while we want to have it as "distance from the moon". That's all.

"m = 1.07 * 10^23 kg [Note: This is different from the "accepted" value of m = 0.735 * 10^23 kg, but it's not that far off, either...

So more than 25% is not that far off?

Man if you were working for NASA they would miss the Moon altogether

"I have pointed out in the past, that the Apollo "neutral point", reported by von Braun et.al. to be at 43,495 miles from the moon, is not exactly the L1 distance..."

So you agree that 43,495 is correct and that L1 is incorrect... hmmmm

*deeep sigh* ... I just knew it ...

Ok, let me try to make this more clear:
(1) John Lear has accepted 43,495 miles as the distance of L1 from the moon (in the posting I've been answering to).
(2) In that same posting, Mr. Lear also accepted the formula for L1 as presented in the original paper.
[ref for (1) and (2): as said by John Lear :

I have no argument with Lagrange's equation, it is indeed an accurate way to find the neutral point. (...)
Again, hangerteteen, the mathematical equation is correct. The values are in error because they are assuming an incorrect mass for the moon. If they used the correct mass for the moon then LaGrange would be 43,495 miles.

]
(3) Now, in my posting I wanted to derive a value for the moon's gravity, according to John Lear's accepted value for the Lagrange point L1 and the L1 formula. I.e., if Mr. Lear accepts (1) and (2), what moon gravity should he arrive at? The result is 24% of earth, not 65%! I.e., according to Mr. Lear's conspiracy theory, the moon gravity should be 0.24 ge, and not 0.65 ge. This is a significant difference, and invalidates many of his conclusions.

So now YOUR figures are saying its 24% or 1 quarter of Earth?

As I said above, the 24% are what John Lear should calculate, according to the values and formulas he has accepted as true (see JL quote above).

Now to my point of view: I did not say that L1 is at 43,495 miles from the moon! The "neutral point" reported by the Apollo mission(s) was not at L1 distance, because the Apollo spacecraft didn't travel exactly on the straight line between earth and moon. Any trajectory which is off this line will experience the "neutral point" (where the velocity of the spacecraft (as measured in the reference system in which earth and moon are fixed) will increase again after having decreased before) at a distance greater than L1. (As for why this is so, I explained that quite a while ago in this posting.)

The actual L1 distance from the moon is about 38,000 miles (which, when used in the L1 formula to calculate moon mass, gives the "standard value" for the moon gravity at 0.16 ge). Therefore a "neutral point" of 43,495 miles from the moon is perfectly plausible using only "standard" values of moon mass etc.

Maybe if you tinker the numbers a bit more you will come up with the correct answer of 65% eventually

I hope I have made my points more clear now. And I really hope that you try to understand what I was saying, and not pick on my probably imperfect use of the English language. Feel free, however, to point out any specific mistakes in my calculations (I could have mistyped when using the calculator).

Regards
yf

Zorgon,

Lighten up on YF a bit will you! His arguments are factualy correct. As for you nit-picking about his grammer, I believe he is German by nationallity. So technically, for his country, and the way he was taught, his grammer is Fine.

We're here to debate John Lear's posting and if there is disinformation involve, not so you can Give YFXXX a grammer lesson in English. Rule of thumb: If you can make sense of it, It's Fine!

Here's my question to you: How does YF's grammer relate to the accracy of John's Moon theory? (if it doesn't you Off-topic!)

Tim

Originally posted by yfxxx
Looks as if Mr. Lear has to "adjust" his moon conspiracy theory a bit

Regards
yf

Speaking of John and Moon Theories:

I remeber John was tring to prove something about a "Neutral Point". Well, here's some general info on the topic:

During the fifties the neutral point was quoted as being approximately 24,000 miles from the Moon. In July 1969 Werner von Braun stated that the neutral point was 43,495 miles from the Moon.

As for the the neutral point is, it's the point between the earth and the moon where the pull of lunar gravity and the pull of earth's gravity are exectally equal and cancell each other out!

www.apollo-hoax.me.uk...

If we're going to debate the Neutral Point, it might be helpful to make sure everyone knows what it is!

Tim

As for the the neutral point is, it's the point between the earth and the moon where the pull of lunar gravity and the pull of earth's gravity are exectally equal and cancell each other out!

www.apollo-hoax.me.uk...

If we're going to debate the Neutral Point, it might be helpful to make sure everyone knows what it is!

I agree. But posting that chart is not helpful. And in fact I would label that chart specious. The definition of specious being "false seemingly good or valid."

I checked on the origination of this chart and it comes from a group in England. No name or affiliation accompanies the chart.

The idea that there are 2 neutral points depending on "how you look at it" is equally specious.

Tim, would you please contact NASA and see if they will vouch for the validity of the chart you posted. I refer to the unsigned chart that shows 2 neutral points 'depending on the way you look at it!" Thanks.

Originally posted by Ghost01
Lighten up on YF a bit will you! His arguments are factualy correct. As for you nit-picking about his grammer, I believe he is German by nationallity. So technically, for his country, and the way he was taught, his grammer is Fine.

LOL Lighten up on YF? Whatever for? He has posted in thread after thread attacking John in a way that is both childish and quite frankly not up to ATS standards. When asked why he has such a personal grudge against John when there are MANY OTHERS here at ATS who present similar ideas, yet do not suffer the same ridicule, there is no answer...

Besides I merely pointed out the fact that he keeps changing his numbers... his latest calculations that he linked to give a value for the gravity on the moon as 24% of Earth....

Excuse me if I am not following his reasoning here... and don't give me that crap about being German... I was born in Hamburg...

I am simply annoyed at the way he presents his case... one simply has to skim over his posts and you can see the childishness of the responses. This must really bother him, I picture that cartoon where the character gets so red hot that his head explodes

But your right I will "ease up"... I have better things to work on...

But I still want to know why only John is singled out like this... [I bet he loves these responses though... it shows he has struck a nerve ]

Now back to the neutral point...

There can only be ONE (save for allowing for apogee and parogee)

Any influence from the outside like solar orbits etc influence the Earth, the Moon and any craft BETWEEN the Earth and Moon equally. The neutral point is that point where the pull is cancelled out. One does not need to be a rocket scientist to understand this.

If you look at the list of misses in the early days of lunar launches its easy to figure out they had the wrong numbers to work with...

[edit on 16-5-2007 by zorgon]

[edit on 16-5-2007 by zorgon]

Originally posted by zorgon
Besides I merely pointed out the fact that he keeps changing his numbers... his latest calculations that he linked to give a value for the gravity on the moon as 24% of Earth....

I clarified my point in my last posting. Did you even read this?

I am simply annoyed at the way he presents his case... one simply has to skim over his posts and you can see the childishness of the responses. This must really bother him, I picture that cartoon where the character gets so red hot that his head explodes

Instead of making snappy remarks, why don't you try to argue against what I said in my last posting? I think I have formulated it well enough to deserve a reply about the argument at hand, and not about any side-issues like my nationality.

So, please, could you tell me exactly what you find wrong in my posting about the calculation of the moon's mass, and the follow-up posting where I explain your original objections (mainly, that "my" science results in a moon gravity of 24% ge). Thank you in advance.

But I still want to know why only John is singled out like this... [I bet he loves these responses though... it shows he has struck a nerve

]

I'll send you a U2U on this one.

Now back to the neutral point...

There can only be ONE (save for allowing for apogee and parogee)

Any influence from the outside like solar orbits etc influence the Earth, the Moon and any craft BETWEEN the Earth and Moon equally. The neutral point is that point where the pull is cancelled out. One does not need to be a rocket scientist to understand this.

This "neutral point" is the Lagrangian Point L1, if your spacecraft is following the direct line between earth and moon. Howerver, as I've said several times, the Apollo trajectories were more complicated. When your trajectory is off the direct line, the specific "neutral point" for this trajectory will be further away from the moon than L1.

If you look at the list of misses in the early days of lunar launches its easy to figure out they had the wrong numbers to work with...

Imperfect rocket technology (engines and guidance systems) can explain these misses just as well.

Regards
yf

Originally posted by Ghost01

During the fifties the neutral point was quoted as being approximately 24,000 miles from the Moon. In July 1969 Werner von Braun stated that the neutral point was 43,495 miles from the Moon.

As for the the neutral point is, it's the point between the earth and the moon where the pull of lunar gravity and the pull of earth's gravity are exectally equal and cancell each other out!

www.apollo-hoax.me.uk...

Sorry, Tim, but the link you posted is really not helpful here ! It makes the same mistake as John Lear, i.e. applying Newton's law as if earth and moon were hanging in space fixed. And the red line in the graph adds even more nonsense to it.

Regards
yf

[edit: changed a typo in John Lear's name. I'm really sorry about this typo, and guarantee that it was an honest mistake. I'm sorry, Mr. Lear.]


[edit on 16.5.2007 by yfxxx]

Originally posted by yfxxx applying Newton's law as if earth and moon were hanging in space fixed.

And whats wrong with that? Relative to the background forces of solar gravity, the solar system moving through the galaxy and the galaxy whizzing through space... the fact remains that the Earth/Moon system has the same forces exerted on them and so does any spaceship that is within that system... so its a mute point to bring in outside influences.

Originally posted by yfxxx
It makes the same mistake as John Liar....

Who exactly is this person?

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by yfxxx
It makes the same mistake as John Liar....

Who exactly is this person?

Oh no ! I'm really sorry about this typo (and I swear it was a typo, and not on purpose!). I changed it in my posting.

Regards
yf

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by yfxxx applying Newton's law as if earth and moon were hanging in space fixed.

And whats wrong with that? Relative to the background forces of solar gravity, the solar system moving through the galaxy and the galaxy whizzing through space... the fact remains that the Earth/Moon system has the same forces exerted on them and so does any spaceship that is within that system... so its a mute point to bring in outside influences.

I don't mean outside influences (which we can indeed neglect), but the fact that earth and moon rotate around their common center of gravity (which is inside the earth).

Therefore, if you make calculations in a frame of reference where earth and moon are fixed (like you do when calculating Lagrange Points), you have to take this rotating frame of reference and the resulting "pseudo forces" (mainly the centrifugal force) into account.

Regards
yf


[edit on 16.5.2007 by yfxxx]

Originally posted by intrepid
Who exactly is this person?

I'm trying to figure that out too.

From what I've seen so far, at least he inconspicuously tells the truth about his lies:

He hasn't stated any thing as "fact" yet, has he?

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by yfxxx
It makes the same mistake as John Liar....

Who exactly is this person?

Some supposed scientist from Germany whom has quite a grasp on all things American( check his almost intimate knowledge of US rocket lauches in other threads and his humor reeks of US) Hmm. And yes he did change some numbers to benefit his argument which he scoffs continually at John for doing.
Yep
yfxxx is simply a disinfo man himself clouding theories with rederick,belittlement all mixed in off humor. Do you work for Fox I wonder.
Anyways I do acknowledege Y's scientific reference quotes but his candor is quite that of a spitefull know it all and I find his in the small box thinking negligible in most threads he participates in. So another words I suppose Y is our resident Fun Govenor and has appointed himself Johns burden apparently.
Your pitifull Y. You do realize that dont you?

Carry on.

Allow me to make a down home, common sense comment about this lunar gravity debate.

The gravitational attractive force exerted by any body is a direct function of is mass (at least according to todays accepted Newtonian model)

The volume of the Earth (with a G value of 1) is 2.4ee11 cubic miles (2.4 times 10 to the 11th power)

The volume of the moon is 5.2ee9 cubic miles.

Ergo....the moon has 2% the volume of the Earth.

Assuming the densities of these two bodies are equal we would expect the moon to exert
not 1/6th (16%) of Earth's gravity, but only 2% (1/50th) of Earth's gravity.

According to NASA (and almost everyone else) the moon exerts 1/6th of Earths pull, therfore they must believe the moon is 8 times more dense than the Earth. This, in itself, is very interesting,

However, to believe that the moon exerts roughly 2/3rds (66%) of Earth's gravity, you must believe the Moon's density to be approximately 33 times greater than Earth's.

You know what? I think I just proved the hollow Earth theory!




[edit on 5/16/2007 by darkbluesky]