Is John Lear Spreading Disinfo?

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
Plus, a significant amount of ATS discussions are purely speculative. No one has a "better" opinion than anyone else. Its all theoretical, and without any contradictory proof, remains such. Therefore, we can all have varying opinions, an accurate example of which can be seen in this exchange:

Originally posted by johnlear

Originally posted by yfxxx
Well, Mr. Lear has explicitly stated as fact some information, which is demonstrably absolute nonsense (specifically, that the moon has a significant (and even breathable) atmosphere).

I assume you haven't been to the moon yfxxx. Neither have I. So your opinion is as demonstrably absolute nonsense as mine.

Well, thank you so much for omitting my response to this completely ridiculous reply by Mr. Lear! What I said was:

Originally posted by yfxxx
Other than a scientific illiterate as you, I don't have to go to the moon to find out facts about it! For a start, it's in plain sight a lot of the time. A small telescope + some spectrography equipment (affordable even for private enthusiasts) is all you need to show that there is no breathable atmosphere on the moon.

So it's most definitely not "all theoretical"! I can back up my claim with direct observations, which can be (and of course have been) made by many astronomers, completely independent from NASA or any other "official" source! Therefore Mr. Lear's claim, that the moon has a breathable atmosphere is not "without any contradictory proof". It is demonstrably nonsense!

Saying that Mr. Lear's and my "opinions" on the moon's atmosphere are of equal validity is downright laughable. It's like saying the opinion that the Earth has an ellipsoid shape is "not better" than the opinion that it's a flat disk!

For Mr. Lear's subforum on ATS, the motto should be changed from "Deny Ignorance" to "Promote Ignorance" !

Regards
yf

Originally posted by undo
DarkBlueSky,

Well it does fit, if you take the rest of his theories into consideration, such as the idea that we or someone, has been up there mining Helium 3 and creating glass structures for decades, at the very least, and the biproducts are water in the form of steam and oxygen. Many pictures of the moon show cloud-like, smoky, layers over the surface, which would suggest they've succeeded in creating a layer of atmosphere, close to the surface, composed of oxygen and clouds composed of steam, mist, fog.

And exactly how would this solve the problem of crater erosion - something which would definitely happen in a dense atmosphere, but obviously hasn't happened?

Regards
yf

Originally posted by yfxxx


And exactly how would this solve the problem of crater erosion - something which would definitely happen in a dense atmosphere, but obviously hasn't happened?

Regards
yf

Not sure how you'd know. Are you?

Originally posted by undo
Not sure how you'd know. Are you?

Yes. The moon is not invisible, you can see lots of craters on it. Look through a telescope. If there is an observatory in your vicinity, go there when they have a "public viewing night". You'll see that all the impact craters have sharply defined features. Also, look near the edges of the moon's disk: the view doesn't get "fuzzy" or "hazy" there, and that's by itself a sign that there is no significant atmosphere there. Same for the "terminator" (the border between the light and the dark side of the moon) - it's not the least fuzzy.

I don't have to believe anything, if I can see it with my own eyes.

So, back to my question: How would that what you said (about the "He-3 mining" etc.) explain the lack of crater erosion on a moon with a dense atmosphere?

Regards
yf

Originally posted by yfxxx

Originally posted by undo
Not sure how you'd know. Are you?

Yes. The moon is not invisible, you can see lots of craters on it. Look through a telescope. If there is an observatory in your vicinity, go there when they have a "public viewing night". You'll see that all the impact craters have sharply defined features. Also, look near the edges of the moon's disk: the view doesn't get "fuzzy" or "hazy" there, and that's by itself a sign that there is no significant atmosphere there. Same for the "terminator" (the border between the light and the dark side of the moon) - it's not the least fuzzy.

I don't have to believe anything, if I can see it with my own eyes.

So, back to my question: How would that what you said (about the "He-3 mining" etc.) explain the lack of crater erosion on a moon with a dense atmosphere?

Regards
yf

Well do you believe your own eyes when you see pictures from the surface that are obviously showing clouds ? there must be an explanation besides denying the pictures are depicting clouds, when they obviously are depicting clouds/fog/banks of steam/dust and so on. i've also seen a pic of the moon where it does have an atmosphere. it's a thin atmosphere, but an atmosphere none-the-less. you think in absolutes. it's either gotta be all one way or the opposite. but there are always variations inbetween extremes.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan


Well....i would disagree but instead of debating will just refer you to the post you had earlier in the thread about John's breath.

It was meant as an anology for stretching the truth, I did not mean to imply that his breath really stinks, sorry John if you took it that way as well.

Originally posted by niv

Originally posted by kleverone
Never rub another mans rhubarb.

I included this quote even though I have no idea what it means because it's so d#mn funny.

You like that? 89' Batman, Jack Nicholson as the Joker.

Never rub another mans Rhubarb!

What if those are not impact craters? What if they are electrical discharge blisters, or electrically machined holes?

thunderbolts.info...

thunderbolts.info...

Hvae you seen the chain craters? They look more like electrical arc scars. yes, it takes a large arc...but why is this spot on the moon glowing in a color often described as "plasma blue"? :




Kind of reminds me of this view of the beginnings of electrical discharge on the comet Tempel:




Taken from: thunderbolts.info...

Now, does that comet look like a "dirty snowball" or a "snowy dirtball" or whatever NASA is trying to say comets are made of?

Regardless, it is entirely possible that there are intermittent periods of electrical activity in our solar system. Enceladus, yes the moon, was emitting cometary jets recently as well.

Science likes to think it knows what it is talking about. You find "proofs" rooted in circular logic and tout them as the holy grail of logic. I don't believe much of what science has to say. Even the spectrometers....they mean very little to me. There are forces at play that are not even considered, and the emporer has no clothes.

Originally posted by undo
Well do you believe your own eyes when you see pictures from the surface that are obviously showing clouds ? there must be an explanation besides denying the pictures are depicting clouds, when they obviously are depicting clouds/fog/banks of steam/dust and so on. i've also seen a pic of the moon where it does have an atmosphere. it's a thin atmosphere, but an atmosphere none-the-less. you think in absolutes. it's either gotta be all one way or the opposite. but there are always variations inbetween extremes.

Ok, forget it. I'm sorry to have stepped into your world. Believe what you want ... see what you want ... I don't care. Be it clouds on the moon, forests on Mars, swimming pools on Titan, tyrannosaurs on Saturn ... whatever, see it and believe! Be an enlightened True Believer , and not a stupid, ignorant, closed-minded, arrogant, smart-*ss scientist like me! If I'm so blind that I don't see all the weird and wonderful artifacts on the moon, it's all my own fault! If I insist to rather follow old-fashioned un-spiritual "scientific laws", instead of going forward to new and exciting worlds where anything goes, you shouldn't care! Leave me (and other all too "rational" persons) behind, when you explore the unknown and find The Truth. I don't deserve anything better than dying one day as a dumb and assimilated "sheep", which never caught so much as a glimpse of the vast and wonderful world around it! Take care, and when you look at that giant soul collector on the moon, think of me as one of the poor souls which will never get there because they weren't worth it.

Best regards, and May The Force Be With You
yf

Originally posted by undo
pictures from the surface that are obviously showing clouds ?[...] when they obviously are depicting clouds/fog/banks of steam/dust and so on.[...]but there are always variations inbetween extremes.

Obviously? If it were obvious, you would not have skeptics rolling their eyes. If you're referring to the photos you posted earlier....the only obvious quality of those photos is "blurry". This also perfectly points out the lack of variations between some extremes. Can something be legitimately described as "kind of" obvious? Or "sort of" obvious. I can't think of anything that's "a little bit" obvious. It is, or is not, obvious.

Originally posted by MrPenny


Obviously? If it were obvious, you would not have skeptics rolling their eyes. If you're referring to the photos you posted earlier....the only obvious quality of those photos is "blurry". This also perfectly points out the lack of variations between some extremes. Can something be legitimately described as "kind of" obvious? Or "sort of" obvious. I can't think of anything that's "a little bit" obvious. It is, or is not, obvious.

You honestly mean to tell me, you can't see the clouds/smoke/fog/dust in this picture? You can't see where it's partially covering the thing in the upper right hand corner? You can't see it streaming out of that tower thing?
www.thestargates.com...

If not, what type of monitor are you using? What type of internet connection do you have and what type of graphics card?

undo, the picture has been goofed with. I don't care if its only had the pretty sepia tone added....bottom line is...someone has played around with the photo. Now, its worth 'bupkus' as evidence. "Evidence" that has been tampered with is trash.

Just because you asked:

19" Tektronix CRT
1.2 Mb DSL
GeForce MX 4000 128 MB AGP Card
2.8 GB P IV
1 GB ram

Now what?

[edit on 30-4-2007 by MrPenny]

Hi john, do the greys of legend that have large black eyes and grey leathery lookin skin real? Or are they more humanlike but smaller and childlike looking? Are they really evil as people say or are they neither good nor bad?

Originally posted by yfxxx

Ok, forget it. I'm sorry to have stepped into your world. Believe what you want ... see what you want ... I don't care. Be it clouds on the moon, forests on Mars, swimming pools on Titan, tyrannosaurs on Saturn ... whatever, see it and believe! Be an enlightened True Believer

, and not a stupid, ignorant, closed-minded, arrogant, smart-*ss scientist

like me! If I'm so blind that I don't see all the weird and wonderful artifacts on the moon, it's all my own fault! If I insist to rather follow old-fashioned un-spiritual "scientific laws", instead of going forward to new and exciting worlds where anything goes, you shouldn't care! Leave me (and other all too "rational" persons) behind, when you explore the unknown and find The Truth. I don't deserve anything better than dying one day as a dumb and assimilated "sheep", which never caught so much as a glimpse of the vast and wonderful world around it! Take care, and when you look at that giant soul collector on the moon, think of me as one of the poor souls which will never get there because they weren't worth it.

Best regards, and May The Force Be With You
yf

You went to an awful lot of work to say that. I'd like to respond to it but there's not much to respond to. I don't think you're stupid. I consider myself a scientist to a certain degree, in that, I'm trying to determine what it is I'm seeing in these photographs and not relying on someone else to tell me what to see and what not to. If it doesn't make sense to me now, i don't write it off as imaginary, because I don't know all there is to know and even things that don't make sense, have the potential to make sense later.

Originally posted by MrPenny
undo, the picture has been goofed with. I don't care if its only had the pretty sepia tone added....bottom line is...someone has played around with the photo. Now, its worth 'bupkus' as evidence. "Evidence" that has been tampered with is trash.

All I did was highlight the circle and tower thing. the clouds/smoke/fog/dust, is exactly as in the original. Do you want me to get the original? I can you know. Your answer will determne your sincerity.

Originally posted by undo
Your answer will determne your sincerity.

I'm judging your photos and evidence. You want to judge my sincerity? Thank you, but I'll pass. Do whatever makes you happy dear.

Originally posted by yfxxx
And exactly how would this solve the problem of crater erosion - something which would definitely happen in a dense atmosphere, but obviously hasn't happened?

Yf could you please tell me were I can see an example of crater erosion? This is beginning to sound like your infamous centrifugal force fairy tale. Thanks.

regentsprep.org...

Originally posted by MrPenny

I'm judging your photos and evidence. You want to judge my sincerity? Thank you, but I'll pass. Do whatever makes you happy dear.

You mean you don't want to see the original, even after telling me that you wouldn't accept the one i showed you because it had some highlighting on it?

This is the original
It's the big copernicus 1 file. The anomaly is located on the left hand side. If you follow the numbers in the border (62, 63, etc), it's next to (to the right of) the fourth number down (which is a 63). It's about an inch and a half to the right of the left border. It's smaller, of course, because I had cut out the first one i showed you and enlarged it so the details could be seen better.
www.thestargates.com...


[edit on 30-4-2007 by undo]

This is great. A new way to try and twist the vast amount of viable resources John has allready provided.
If he is a disinfo guy its the first truly lousy job the man has performed(see his faa service record). I mean what disinfo guy provides real and undoctored Nasa and Russian images and then daily provides all kinds of one on one insigt(posts)? Most of us serious about the truth see much of what he has stated on the moon and the hush Gov complexes in the World and then continues to provide even more info?
The problem is people dont want to believe the real truth and some folks are paid to debunk or nullify by any means any credible references who have bucked the horrid and appauling system of deciet by our criminally minded at times govt. This is what John and other distinct pilots and astronauts,officials,workers,etc.. who have echoed very similar stories as John.
Time will tell I suppose and I cant wait for the day when the shadow Govt at the control of all this is held accoutable by us or others.
For moon annomolies its no simpler than downloading some early moon images from nasa or even their world wind viewer,spending some time and using a good photo enhancing program and boom you have some parts of a story that Nasa and others would Love to leave out of their playbook.
John has 100% credibility with me as I had heard of the pilot John Lear long before ATS and his earlier coming out of the black shadows with his moon and alien accounts.
The funny thing is he's way more credible than 95% of you and I and for that matter those employed by our Govt. if you want to boil it down.



[edit on 30-4-2007 by VType]

And the enlarged version without any modifications other than enlarging so you can see the details