Is John Lear Spreading Disinfo?

Originally posted by undo
yfxxx,

how do you explain clouds of dust, smoke and mist, on the moon? we have photographic evidence of this and you simply choose to ignore it.

how do you explain craft that defy known physics? how many immense craft without visible engines, have you personally seen blink out and reappear farther away? you do realize the implications of that, do you not?

you honestly expect people who actually know differently, to accept your view of things? we have seen these evidences, first hand.

what do you bring to the table?
a text book, that someone else wrote, based on science, that is probably some fifty years or more behind the actual science.

Excellent points, Undo. Seems that there are phenomenon that are being ignored, while the mathematics is being hammered on.

OK, so the math may be wrong...what about the pictures? What about the Mars pics that support the Moon pics?

Selective arguing?

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan


Excellent points, Undo. Seems that there are phenomenon that are being ignored, while the mathematics is being hammered on.

OK, so the math may be wrong...what about the pictures? What about the Mars pics that support the Moon pics?

Selective arguing?

Is the math wrong? How is the math wrong? Can someone show me where the math is wrong? Is the math wrong because they assume the rest of the supporting info is incorrect? Or is the math wrong because they say so? Or is the math, truly wrong?

Originally posted by undo
Progression (in case you missed it or are reading-impaired)

1. hangerateteen (one of the anti-Lear people on this thread) posted a link filled with personal attacks against Lear.

1. I'm not so much "anti-Lear" as I'm anti-BS and please refer to my original post for the reason why I posted the link in response to another poster's query.

2. Did you read the entire article or did you just focus on the first few paragraphs concerning his improprieties? If you did it sounds like you missed the stuff concerning Lear's relationship with Lazar. But hey, thanks for pointing out to everyone who may not have bothered to read it how unethical at least one of his "friends" thinks he is.

Originally posted by undo
2. I responded that this link was irrelevant information and that before i'm deemed a conspirator in league with the CIA (if Lear is, then his supporters must be as well, is the inference), it would behoove those who read the thread to consider the evidence does NOT support such an assumption.

1. If you read the entire article I don't see how anyone could find it irrelevant to the subject of this thread.

2. What, do you have a guilty conscience? Who said his supporters must also be in league as well? Could they not be unwittingly advancing an agenda they're unaware of? (which BTW is something even Lear himself could be doing but I really doubt it) I pointed out Zorgon simply because in my opinion I think he's being taken for a ride going nowhere but by all means feel free to press on.

[fixed quote]

[edit on 20-5-2007 by hangerateteen]

Could they not be unwittingly advancing an agenda they're unaware of?

I suppose so, although I've not spoken on which of his theories I agree with and which I do not, overall. However, I can see with my own eyes, that there are clouds on the moon. What does that mean, scientifically, that there are clouds on the moon?

I also completely believe my husband's recollection of the craft he saw, that not only defied known physics, it did so in the eighties. that's just how far the general scientific public is behind the learning curve of top secret science (and probably farther than even that, especially by now, some twenty years later).

Originally posted by undo

However, I can see with my own eyes, that there are clouds on the moon. What does that mean, scientifically, that there are clouds on the moon?

If there were/are clouds on the moon, they would be visible with a telescope. What do you believe more, your eyes looking at a live image of the moon through the telescope or a blurry grainy picture?

I'm not sure about the extent of cloud cover, but it seems closer to the ground, localized in the area of craters in most cases, and associated with other things, such as equipment. here's an example of not only low lying mist but a trail of smoke or steam, eminating from a tall structure




considering the size of this thing, when viewed in the larger image of copernicus crater, the idea that you might be able to see the smoke or ground cover clouds/fog/mist with a telescope seems unlikely. the albedo (is that the right term?) of these craters is very high, which would mask out some of the cloudiness from a long distance, such as from earth, but would be more readily viewable closer to ground level, where the camera lens can filter out the extreme brightness.

larger and uncolored




[edit on 20-5-2007 by undo]

Are we not seeing a photo that is looking straight down, that same if we would be viewing from a telescope on earth? How can you assume that it would be more discernalbe on the ground, when you have not even seen it from that angle? I not sure I understand what you are proposing And I am not referring to the commom telescope, I am talking about a observatory style scope.

[edit on 20-5-2007 by kleverone]

What do you make of this, btw? I didn't do anything to this, other than to cut it out of the bigger picture and increase the size a bit so you can see it better. It's from Clementine color images. This set of images were taken by clementine and put on the web by the USGS.


And this is a bigggg picture. Once it loads, scroll all the way to the bottom and scan across it. Oh and check out the huge "plasma" anomalie. This is consider natural color, although the colors have been saturated a bit more than normal, they claim it is natural albedo and natural color (or as close as they can approximate it)

www.thestargates.com...

Originally posted by kleverone
Are we not seeing a photo that is looking straight down, that same if we would be viewing from a telescope on earth? How can you assume that it would be more discernalbe on the ground, when you have not even seen it from that angle? I not sure I understand what you are proposing

And I am not referring to the commom telescope, I am talking about a observatory style scope.

[edit on 20-5-2007 by kleverone]

No it isn't straight down. it's from the huge copernicus pics, taken from the level of the crater rim, looking.. i believe north, across the crater. If you'l note the numbers along the left side of the image, the anomalie is around the fourth number from the top (counting down) and about a half inch to the right.
Warning, this is a huge copernicus black and white

www.thestargates.com...

[edit on 20-5-2007 by undo]

What do you make of this? Another clementine color anomalie.



And this




And this




[edit on 20-5-2007 by undo]

Originally posted by undo

What do you make of this, btw? I didn't do anything to this, other than to cut it out of the bigger picture and increase the size a bit so you can see it better. It's from Clementine color images. This set of images were taken by clementine and put on the web by the USGS.


And this is a bigggg picture. Once it loads, scroll all the way to the bottom and scan across it. Oh and check out the huge "plasma" anomalie. This is consider natural color, although the colors have been saturated a bit more than normal, they claim it is natural albedo and natural color (or as close as they can approximate it)

www.thestargates.com...

Honestly, with the first pic I see a white blur, and I cannot see the anomoly in the second pic, I'm not saying its not there, I just cannot see it. I certainly don't see any type of clouds or atmosphere though.

Originally posted by undo
What do you make of this? Another clementine color anomalie.



And this




And this




[edit on 20-5-2007 by undo]

Honestly, it looks like white rocks to me. Sorry

the color ones i'm showing you don't contain clouds/mist/fog/smoke. they are in the area of the mares (the big dark areas). i wonder if your monitor, internet service provider or video card is hampering what you're seeing. that's too bad. cause it's definitely not a big white blur. it's a shiny gold, sometimes almost peachy gold, color.

Honestly, it looks like white rocks to me. Sorry

Oh that's definitely not right.
Are you running windows xp?
Do you know the name of your video card?

I do see the gold color that you are refering to, but couldn't that be the sun reflecting off a metallic surface? Say a chunk or Iron or some other other reflective natural metal?

This thread talks about some of the metals found there.






[edit on 20-5-2007 by kleverone]

Originally posted by undo
how do you explain craft that defy known physics? how many immense craft without visible engines, have you personally seen blink out and reappear farther away? you do realize the implications of that, do you not?

So this means its Alien in origin? Just because it defies known physics does not mean it defies physics, just physics as we understand it. I highly suggest you read into quantum and string theories. I believe that what is being seen is a derivitive of Tesla's electromagnetics in control by the military industrial complex. I believe that govt tech is quite a few years ahead of public knowledge.

Originally posted by kleverone


So this means its Alien in origin? Just because it defies known physics does not mean it defies physics, just physics as we understand it. I highly suggest you read into quantum and string theories. I believe that what is being seen is a derivitive of Tesla's electromagnetics in control by the military industrial complex. I believe that govt tech is quite a few years ahead of public knowledge.

Well that's my point. It's defying KNOWN physics, which means they ain't telling us what they know.

Originally posted by undo
You would believe a scientist, who clearly is only allowed to release to the public what the government considers safe to release ...

... a scientist who has no recourse but to leave out certain data in his writings.

I'm sorry, but I really wonder how you came to the conclusion that all cutting-edge research is controlled by the government of the country where the research institution is in. I don't know how it is elsewhere, but I know that it's not so in Germany. And while we may not have state-of-the-art research on all fields here in Germany, what we for example do have is the GSI, one of the three world-leading research institutions in the field of super-heavy elements (guess why elements 108-111 have names of German origin), which is directly relevant to Bob Lazar's "Element 115" claims. If you have any factual evidence, that GSI's research output is restricted by the German government, please forward it. Otherwise, I'd kindly ask you to stop unsubstantiated general accusations (like being sock puppets of whatever government) to the scientific community in general. Thank you!

Regards
yf

yfxxx,

well did they tell you that there is craft capable of basically folding space? or are you suggesting they don't know about USA technology?

If it's a military project they probably DON'T know IF it exists. The military isn't going to go to some other country and say "Hey look what we've got! Want to have one of your own?" with something like that. Hell, they won't even let STEALTH be exported out of the country until the F-35 comes online in another 5 years.