Is John Lear Spreading Disinfo?

Originally posted by Nobusuke TagomiI personally think some Military personnel can be offered a limited level of trust, but I would never trust any of them anywhere near in full.

The Military doesn't want your trust, just your fear

Originally posted by zorgon


Yes yes I know its a fuzzy picture... Well that would be the point... because the "fuzzyness" is caused by the cloud cover... forget the fuzziness for just a minute... the craters in the previous picture are OBSCURED... And THAT is the point.. you cannot SEE them because they are covered by cloud.
[edit on 21-5-2007 by zorgon]

zorgon,

Sorry to crash the party, but what I'm seeing in your picture is the effects of light and shadow. The illusion of clouds is enhanced by the fact that the picture appears to have been taken with black and white film. The film exaggerates the "Shadow Effect" in the picture. As for the fuzziness, this is an old picture.

See if you can find youself a high-resolution color image of the moon's surface, and you will see that what appear to be clouds are really nothing of the sort!

Tim

[edit on 5/22/2007 by Ghost01]

Whoa hold up. Is that one of the claims, that there are clouds on the moon??... Please tell me its not, seriously lol.

Originally posted by Ghost01
but what I'm seeing in your picture is the effects of light and shadow.

That does not surprise me...

The illusion of clouds is enhanced by the fact that the picture appears to have been taken with black and white film. The film exaggerates the "Shadow Effect" in the picture. As for the fuzziness, this is an old picture.

It does not appear to be black and white it IS black and white, but you totally ignored the fact that in one image the craters are visible and in the second they are obscured... taken by the same telescope a few days apart, at the same resolution... but thats okay you will only see what you wish to see... no problem.

See if you can find youself a high-resolution color image of the moon's surface, and you will see that what appear to be clouds are really nothing of the sort!

Do you have a source for one of these high resolution color photos of the Moon you speak of? Other than the Clementine images I originally presented in another thread?

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
Whoa hold up. Is that one of the claims, that there are clouds on the moon??...

Please tell me its not, seriously lol.

Let's see... mining operations, alien bases, breathable atmosphere, a tower for catching souls...

And you pick on clouds.

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
Whoa hold up. Is that one of the claims, that there are clouds on the moon??...

Please tell me its not, seriously lol.

One amoung many! Perhaps you should brows the Land of BS forum and see what else is there. If you like that one, you will love the one about the ET's who flew 90'000 light years and gave us flying saucer technology just to get Free Gulf Lessons at Area 51! (Yes this is a real John Lear claim, you can find it in his Questions for John Lear thread!)

Tim

[edit on 5/22/2007 by Ghost01]

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
Whoa hold up. Is that one of the claims, that there are clouds on the moon??...

Please tell me its not, seriously lol.

Wow Denying Ignorance here can be a full time occupation...

Moon Mystery Emerges From The X-files by Charles Seife

Lunar South Polar as imaged by Clementine Pasadena - October 21, 1999 - Reports of curious flashes and fleeting clouds on the Moon may not be figments of wild imaginations, astronomers say. A new look at observations by the American satellite Clementine show that a small area on the Moon's surface darkened and reddened in April 1994. Why this happened remains a mystery.

For hundreds of years, people have reported seeing flashes, short-lived clouds and other brief changes on the Moon's surface. But astronomers have never been able to confirm the sightings. "The events were observed on many occasions, but most astronomers don't believe in them," says Bonnie Buratti of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California.

Source - Space Daily

We are not talking major cloud cover here, but occasional brief periods of clouds... and even NASA has them recorded it their files...

But I guess you "educated" skeptics know better

I take the term "cloud" with a grain of salt. There is alot we do not understand about the way objects work in space, and various interactions with various fields of energy.

IMO i would say any flashes or dust clouds would be the result of impacts to the surface of the Moon. There is some interesting effects when two interstellar objects collide; A flash/arc of intense energy. Even comets exhibit this effect;

They sing the comet electric

"According to the model, comets are not inert balls of ice and rocky dust particles aggregated into a "dirty iceball" as standard comet theory holds. Instead, they are solid, asteroid-like rocks, containing little ice. Negatively charged with electricity, their motion through the positively charged solar wind triggers electrical discharges. These, not vaporized ice, produce the characteristic comet glow and tail."

The electric universe theory explains alot, and i urge anyone interested to look it up.

[edit on 22-5-2007 by shrunkensimon]

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
The electric universe theory explains alot, and i urge anyone interested to look it up.

Actually we have two Pegasus team mates that study the "electric universe" extensively...

But you came on attacking our "clouds" yet expect your EU theory to be taken seriously...

:shk:

Sure some of the clouds we have seen could be electrostatic events, but dust plumes from crashes and impacts require some atmosphere

Now just follow along for a minute and look at this image closely...

There is a bright "flash" upper left to the right of the big crater... from the bottom of that flash, you can see streamers of "dust" arching out in different directions. The horizon also shows this cloud above the limb. I suspect what we are seeing here is an impact, with ejecta dust and debris... but in any case the "dust cloud" obscures all the surrounding terrain.

Provide me a better quality picture and i mite actually consider your analysis, but until then, to claim anything about it..the picture is black and white, and of poor quality.

Oh, and i think you'll find the electric universe theory makes more sense than the current cosmic paradigm we have running right now.

Originally posted by zorgon
but in any case the "dust cloud" obscures all the surrounding terrain.

Its a paradox zorgon.....that photo is so bad, it obscures itself.

Originally posted by MrPenny

Originally posted by zorgon
but in any case the "dust cloud" obscures all the surrounding terrain.

Its a paradox zorgon.....that photo is so bad, it obscures itself.

Yep admittedly that clip is not very clear... it needs the full scanned version... but Mare Crissium has been shown to change in many photos. I suppose I will have to go through all of the ones I have and do a comparison page... but I will leave that for the moon thread. And I need to get mike to point his scope at it

Do I believe everything I see posted? Of course not. Do I think all the posters believe everything they post? Ditto.
But if you stir the pot long enough, eventually a bit of meat will float to the top of the stew.
Living in the "Great American Outback" between Top Gun and Area 51, I can truthfully say that I have seen things that are beyond "recognised" current technology, and have spoken with friends that are former TTR employees and JANET pilots.

The only interesting thing about a majority of them that I have noticed, is the number of them who became Buddists and vegetarians and loners after retirement----and still keep their collective oaths.

Still awaiting my "Americans Only" tour ( for those I am sure are monitoring) and BTW, lunch at base camp was awesome, hoping to be invited again next year.

Originally posted by gotrox
The only interesting thing about a majority of them that I have noticed, is the number of them who became Buddists and vegetarians and loners after retirement----and still keep their collective oaths.

Buddists? Now THAT is interesting...

Still awaiting my "Americans Only" tour ( for those I am sure are monitoring) and BTW, lunch at base camp was awesome, hoping to be invited again next year.

Well if your in town, maybe we can do lunch at Gilligan's some day Quiet little place to chat

And that JANET fleet is just sitting at McCarren in plain site Not sure what all the fuss is about... no one hides the fact that these are the planes that ferry workers to the test site and other interesting locations...

This site has some really cool images... did a lot of work for his "smoking gun" exposing a non secret secret

www.lazygranch.com...


[edit on 24-6-2007 by zorgon]

This argument about cloud cover and obscured craters - seems to me it's very unlikley that you would get cloud cover - and therefore presumably a significant atmosphere - AND craters. Surely having a substantial atmosphere would mean fewer asteroid impacts - and fewer scars on the surface. That's before you've even taken into consideration what an atmosphere would do to weather and erode any impact sites.

I just don't think you can have both. And I'm pretty convinced, based on what I've seen with my own eyes that there are definitely craters. So until someone can explain away those craters, I don't know how to accept any of the theories about atmosphere or much else on the surface.

Note I write "I don't know how to" - I'm not being disrespectful to anyone's point of view - presumably based on other testimony or knowledge that they have that I don't, and which they trust. I suspect, from what I've read of John Lear's postings on these boards, that he would understand the difference between inability to accept and contempt for another point of view.

Doesn't mean he's right though

Originally posted by LoneWeasel
This argument about cloud cover and obscured craters - seems to me it's very unlikley that you would get cloud cover - and therefore presumably a significant atmosphere - AND craters. Surely having a substantial atmosphere would mean fewer asteroid impacts - and fewer scars on the surface. That's before you've even taken into consideration what an atmosphere would do to weather and erode any impact sites.

I just don't think you can have both. And I'm pretty convinced, based on what I've seen with my own eyes that there are definitely craters. So until someone can explain away those craters, I don't know how to accept any of the theories about atmosphere or much else on the surface.

Note I write "I don't know how to" - I'm not being disrespectful to anyone's point of view - presumably based on other testimony or knowledge that they have that I don't, and which they trust. I suspect, from what I've read of John Lear's postings on these boards, that he would understand the difference between inability to accept and contempt for another point of view.

Doesn't mean he's right though

It is presumptive to say that craters are caused by impacts. The research done by Gene Shoemaker centered around the similarities between the Arizona Crater and the craters created in the nuke test sites. But the craters from the nuke test sites were underground explosions, generated from below (not above). I am not sure why the similarities are all that relevant.

What do we know? Well, we know that there are craters. We know that something must have formed them. and we know that you can find material (in particulate form) near many earth bound craters that we would find in what we presume are meteors (we presume this due to spectrometer analysis, not direct knowledge).

What we are missing would be items such as eyewitness accounts of the phenomenon that caused the crater. If there were an impact, have we seen it (other than the ones we caused by slamming rockets and ringing the bell on the Moon)? No, we haven't. We imagine a scenario where craters are caused by impact, but this is not proven.

I posit that most craters are due to either explosions of some material below the surface (which would explain the "glowies" on the moon) or from cosmic lightning in the ancient past (which would explain much of the Earths ancient lore and mythos).

I take your point, furrytexan - I cannot prove that impacts are the cause for the craters. But what we know of the amount of debris in space and the amount of asteroids that burn up in our own atmosphere tells us that any large object floating through space with no means of protecting itself would wear the scars of its journey. So the evidence suggests to me, given footage I have seen that purports to be of the surface, testimony of those that purport to have travelled there, images taken purportedly of the moon's surface, and the science I have been taught by people who alleged what they said to be true... given all these things...

...I believe the moon is without atmosphere, and those craters are caused by impacts.

Now, I'm not narrow-minded enough to refuse to accept that nothing I think I know might well be false - you'll see I use the word "purport" heavily in what I write above. But to accept such a radically different version of events, I would require far more evidence than hypothesis, conjecture and grainy photographs of what really could be anything (though I accept my mental limits may not allow me to see what's really there, if that helps) can provide.

The original post asks if John Lear is spreading disinfo. My personal feeling is that JL doesn't take his opponents on here too seriously, he's not waging a "Thou Shalt Believe" campaign, he's simply saying what he thinks is true.

I can't believe that people get so worked up and upset when trying to argue against his theories. All I'm saying is that there are limits to what I can accept - whether through personal weakness or ignorance, or because I'm actually right - I don't know. But I go on reading, because the bottom line is I really want JL to be right and me to be wrong, but more than that I want to see the evidence for it.

S

Originally posted by LoneWeasel
I take your point, furrytexan ...

... I don't know. But I go on reading, because the bottom line is I really want JL to be right and me to be wrong, but more than that I want to see the evidence for it.

S

Fair enough good sir!!!

The hypothesis is not mine. I can barely watch TV without drooling...i wish i could come up with such inspired thought.

But there is lots of information discussing this concept here:

thunderbolts.info...

thunderbolts.info...

There are lots of people researching this concept. Google "Dr. Tim Eastman". he works for Raytheon as a contractor for NASA. He has some interesting research funded by the government surrounding this concept. Also, google "Plasma Cosmology" and "Electric Universe".

Originally posted by johnlear

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
I don't agree with everything that John Lear espouses - like the soul tower on the moon idea - which he may no longer accept.

Thanks for the post Paul_Richard. I'm not sure where you got that idea but I am firmly convinced that the 6 mile high tower that sits in the Sinus Medii, very near Mosting A transmits and receives souls to and from earth. Now whether or not ALL souls get transmitted or sent from there I don't know. But some of them do.

hahaha tell that one to projectcamelot john haha you kidding? you make more peoples days with this stuff than ruin, you've been reading too much bukoswki or something. i know you won't take it personally. keep bringing the love.
-meow.
-fdisc0

Originally posted by LoneWeasel


...I believe the moon is without atmosphere, and those craters are caused by impacts.

Now, I'm not narrow-minded enough to refuse to accept that nothing I think I know might well be false - you'll see I use the word "purport" heavily in what I write above. But to accept such a radically different version of events, I would require far more evidence than hypothesis, conjecture and grainy photographs of what really could be anything (though I accept my mental limits may not allow me to see what's really there, if that helps) can provide.

The original post asks if John Lear is spreading disinfo. My personal feeling is that JL doesn't take his opponents on here too seriously, he's not waging a "Thou Shalt Believe" campaign, he's simply saying what he thinks is true.

I can't believe that people get so worked up and upset when trying to argue against his theories. All I'm saying is that there are limits to what I can accept - whether through personal weakness or ignorance, or because I'm actually right - I don't know. But I go on reading, because the bottom line is I really want JL to be right and me to be wrong, but more than that I want to see the evidence for it.

S

i totally agree lonew. watch his vid www.projectcamelot.com and you can see how joyful he is about it all. it's fun and it's even more fun to tweak the minds de narrow. i think most of the mature members here play the dry humor game aswell, i don't think he's here to start anything(ruin anyones day), but to have fun in retirement while sitting in his cozy home with his beautiful wife. my grandpa still tries to run marathons and sort out court disputes, but johns imagination runs rapid like alot of us and this (ats) is a wonderful and (mostly) positive place to put it.

edit: i also meant to add i completely agree, the moon is obviously without atmosphere and is subject to even the smallest of impacts, this i feel, is obvious from the pictures, i even asked my cat (who is from mars) and whilst he was indeed on a heavy binge of catnip, he confirmed this info.

[edit on 1-7-2007 by fdisc0]

[edit on 1-7-2007 by fdisc0]