John Lear's Claims Of Civilizations on Most Planets

Zorgon, or whomever, all you guys do it take snippets of small facts and make them fit your outlandish claims. When the facts don't fit your claims, you make a new a new claim for the facts to fit. I didn't start this thread so I would have to answer questions, I started this thread for you side to throw it on the line.

And yes, I did go through at least 75% of the information on multiple pages of that stupid website. What a complete and total load of laughable bs. It's no wonder why most people who mention they are into UFO's get laughed at, you guys are killing us, lol.

I want to know, without any BS answer or "go check this or that" or "open your eyes man" type of crap, how you guys come to the conclusions you have and present them as cold hard facts, and damn anyone who disagrees with you? I mean, really, venus with people living on it. If your basing all of this from the information you presented on all those woo woo sites then it does not surprised me.

Originally posted by scooler1
I don't know guys. Those moon pictures in John's thread and on the living moon site are so out of focus and just generally bad that you could say pretty much anything and with a little imagination even the most skeptical would see something.

I honestly do not understand how you can call this 'generally bad' as you can get the high res version direct from NASA... I don't know what you use to view images but if you are not using a graphics program, then it is no wonder you have difficullty. Even the very skeptical TV news reporter from CBS in San Jose could see this one..




If THIS (below) is what you call 'out of focus' I seriously suggest you need eyeglasses. This is our best image of Aristarchus... top left Look for the blue glow (Warning its BIG)

I guess what I am saying is that anything is possible but unsure if your claims are probable.

May I ask how many documents we have posted that you have read. like the Mineral Rights to the Moon for example? or have you just glanced at pictures?

How about that slide I showed in this thread from NASA showing the fossil and the artifact? No comment on that? THOSE clips are done by NASA not us, they just won't tell us which image they come from

Zorgon, I am interested in hearing more about the astronauts on Mars that maintain the rovers. Please direct me to the thread or site that this is discussed.

Certainly but as I just received permission yesterday to post the stuff... you will have to wait a few days for me to get it uploaded...

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
Zorgon, or whomever, all you guys do it take snippets of small facts and make them fit your outlandish claims.

This is perhaps the dumbest thing you have said so far...

The T&C here and copyright laws in general clearly state all we are allowed to do is provide a little snippet to show our point and make our comments, then it is up to the reader to follow the LINK PROVIDED to the source so they can read it for themselves on the original site in the original context.

If you are to lazy to do that I cannot help that, but that is the way the system works

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
I want to know, without any BS answer or "go check this or that" or "open your eyes man" type of crap, how you guys come to the conclusions you have

Very simple We talk to the people involved and spend hours writing letters to those who will talk with us.

We state things as we do because we personally KNOW these things to be true. We present what evidence we are able to for the viewer to make up their own mind...

The number of viewers on these topics tells me there is a lot of interest. Neither I or John are here to convince the skeptics You can take it our leave it as you choose...

The problem we run into is that some info that we receive we cannot discuss. I have a family, so does John. There are lines we will not cross because someone like you "demands we reveal all or we are just BS'ing

One of those 'lines' came up in the Shuttle thread when we asked questions about a certain patent dealing with a response to a poster jokingly made regarding that 'maybe the secret ships had a cloaking device"

They don't they don't need it but what they do have crosses the line into Stealth tech and I know right now there will be eyebrows raised...

No one at or associated with Pegasus will knowingly reveal anything that compromises National Security. If the skeptics think that is an excuse so be it but before you do I suggest the next time you visit a .mil or other government site like LANL etc you take a moment to read the fine print...

Many people go to NASA every day looking for stuff I wonder how many have ever read their ummm 'terms"

IT Security Warning

You have accessed a U.S. Government Public Information Exchange Resource This site is intended to be used by the public for information exchange. Any attempt to modify or exploit this resource or associated information other than for instructed use is strictly prohibited and may be punishable under the Computer
Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986. The Government may monitor and audit the usage of this resource. All persons are hereby notified that use of this resource constitutes consent for monitoring, keystroke recording, or auditing.

nssdcftp.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Oh yeah I forgot you don't get these warnings on the "KIDDIE' sites they have for the public... but all government computers will have a similar or stricter warning

You may call the Pegasus website stupid all you like, that merely shows your own ignorance. There are many reputable scientists, authors and even government employees that participate

But one thing you will NOT find is anything that is NOT in the public domain. As a sample Boeing just turned us down to allow a presentation about Sea Launch using their material;

You ignore the facts because it suits you I wonder if you have ever filed ONE FOIA request to get at the truth

Okay I am outta here back to the real threads.



[edit on 12-9-2007 by zorgon]

Originally posted by zorgon
Stop the nonsense and answer the question about the dust cloud on the Smart 1 impact and the fact that a NASA patent of a Lunar cargo vessel requires AEROBRAKING DEICES

Its a simple request...

BOTH are current history...

BOTH are NASA sources..

Why not try just once to answer a simple direct question on the evidence presented?

:shk:

Hi Zorgon,

It is quite obvious that your eagerness to believe in a conspiracy has completely clouded your judgment and common sense. Let me explain this to you.

First of all, the dust cloud kicked up from the SMART-1 impact is caused by the dust being thrown up and forward because of the spacecraft's low-angle impact. Just THINK about it. PLEASE use some common sense. Put aside your bias and will to believe. At what angle would the spacecraft be impacting the lunar surface and what would this look like as viewed from earth?

Now about the NASA patent, a logical person with no crazed tendency to twist reality would naturally assume that the mentioned "aerobraking device" was for reentry into EARTH's orbit. And lo and behold, if you actually took the time to research the patent a TINY bit more, you would find this:

...adding an aerobraking means to the external tank for decelerating the external tank when rendezvousing in Earth orbit.

I thought the stated purpose of the technology made this clear enough, but apparently not.

Oh, and using Gary McKinnon's word as evidence? Wow. From the infamous Gary McKinnon, and I quote: "I was smoking a lot of dope at the time. Not good for the intellect." Need I say more?

Now would you please take the time to read my previous post as opposed to just reading the first sentence or two and then throwing more of your conjecture and fantasy at us? REALLY. Read it. Using one equation and elementary physics I have disproved your notion of a living moon. Try it for yourself. I implore you to draft up a sound counterargument devoid of references to shady people or blurry images.

Thanks.

Originally posted by Postal76
It is quite obvious that your eagerness to believe in a conspiracy has completely clouded your judgment and common sense. Let me explain this to you.

Excellent post Postal76… clear, concise and to the point.

It's a sad commentary on the human condition when, for example, one person can look at this photo of what appears to be an ordinary crater on the Moon and see it for what it most likely is (a crater) while another will see a “nuclear reactor” or whatever else they’ve been led to believe it is through the mere power of suggestion…


history.nasa.gov...

The true history behind Mars and Malona/phaeton/maldek/malon are as follows

These two other planets have been inhabited by ET civilizations dating back to hundreds of thousands of years

Earth at the time and starting from 22 million years ago was a penal planet where criminals have been banished as punishment

Mars atmosphere was much more agreeable for the new settlers who migrated from far away galaxies and from within this galaxy

Malona was blown apart through factricidal war which resulted in the settlers decimating the planet through diverting greater part of the ocean into a magma chamber of a volcano
Some escape to mars and earth while the rest prished

It is false for john lear to declare that most planets in our solar system was once inhabited
mercury, venus, saturn, jupiter, uranus, pluto, neptune are so inhospitable to life except bacteria and other small creatures that no human be it ET nor spiritual have ever lived on these celestial bodies

What is the truth though is that various moons including ours have once had ET stations and various remants of it will be found or has already been found since the apollo space program.

we the earth people will soon discover in the not so distant future that we are not alone in theis universe and that mars once harboured human life
Various stations will be found there and many other artifacts

NASA knows about it but keeps airbrushing them out to conceal the truth from the masses.

So the conclusions is that we humans are not originally the byproduct of this earth and that we come from elsewhere in the universe long time ago

some much can be known about our true history from billy meier

Originally posted by jfj123
OK so an advanced civilization traveled from another planet and colonized the moon and built a NUCLEAR REACTOR???? Why didn't they just burn coal???

FUSION reactor and to make the staement about burning coal is really stupid... don't you skeptics state there is no air on the moon? How is coal supposed to burn with no air? Or are you changing you position and stating there IS air for coal to burn? I am confused perhaps you could provide documentation on how coal could burn on the Moon?

Actually it's not stupid. It was a sarcastic response comparing primitive energy producing sources. So NO, I'm not changing my position to what I have posted before. If you'll notice, I posted information about the moons atmosphere. As I have NEVER said the moon had no atmosphere, I decided to clear up any misunderstanding.

Now FUSION reactor could work, and they use HE3

I just showed you NASA's patent for a cargo vesel that transports LIQUID OXYGEN AND HYDROGEN generated on the Moon, transported to LEO and stored there for return trips, not needing more launches... They also carry LIQUID HE3 ( so far we have not tracked where that goes - stay tuned Jack is working on it)
Again just because nasa applied for a pantent doesn't mean it is in current use of that there is even a prototype of anything built or will be built anytime soon.

You see we ourselves are now working on FUSION reactors and the beginnings of Anti-matter. If a more advanced race were doing what you said, they would have left fission (ie nuclear reactors) by the wayside long ago.

Quite true if John said "fission" it would have been an accidental slip of the tongue, a mistake he did not make at the San Jose UFO expo in the lecture and workshop.. John is a pilot, not a Nuclear Physicist... The slip he made about Cherenkov radiation was because he was not familiar with that term until after the Expo (just a few weeks ago)

You see the term was given to us by an MIT Physicist who was at the lecture and talked with me for hours at our booth... This gentleman is in dialog via email and was also one of the organizers of the event

To nit pic on a term used by accident is silly... focus on the concepts

To nit pick on dispensing incorrect information is not "nit picky". It's vital as everyone wants factual information. If you believe Mr. Lear to be a teacher and that teacher was teaching you incorrectly, wouldn't you want to know? Even if was something small?? Besides, it makes me wonder what else he has been mistaken about. Mr. Lear should have simply looked up the word prior to his posting it. It would have taken less then 30 seconds.

Here is my proposal. Since Mr. Lear and yourself desperately want to get the truth out there...I assume that is correct???
My suggestion is you build your own telescope and point it at the moon. A backyard large optical telescope and be built on the cheap so no worries for a pilot.
Once aimed at the moon, simply connect a video camera and watch all the space ships go by. My additional suggestion would be to invite local media to connect their own video cameras so they can record this live without any theoretical interference from anyone. Don't you think FOX news posting a live feed of all these ships and fusion reactors, would prove to everyone, what's really going on?

Originally posted by Postal76
Hi Zorgon,

It is quite obvious that your eagerness to believe in a conspiracy has completely clouded your judgment and common sense. Let me explain this to you.

Oh yes please do... I am obviously living on the other side of the 'Looking Glass'

First of all, the dust cloud kicked up from the SMART-1 impact is caused by the dust being thrown up and forward because of the spacecraft's low-angle impact. Just THINK about it. PLEASE use some common sense. Put aside your bias and will to believe. At what angle would the spacecraft be impacting the lunar surface and what would this look like as viewed from earth?

According to ESA the impact was straight down. THEY refer to it as a "cloud of dust" The evidence in the photo sets, especially in animation clearly shows what happens to the dust...

It is NOT consistent with how dust should behave in a vacuum... Please show me your documentation about the crash angle... I am always willing to be proven wrong. I am not perfect I miss things after hours of reading late into the night But ESA states "cloud of dust" and I can see with my eyes the dispersal pattern

Now about the NASA patent, a logical person with no crazed tendency to twist reality would naturally assume that the mentioned "aerobraking device" was for reentry into EARTH's orbit. And lo and behold, if you actually took the time to research the patent a TINY bit more, you would find this:

Ah now see you spoiled it. I actually gave you the benefit of the doubt as being a serious individual, but I can see by the above statement your arrogance in Vegas style Neon signs...

If you notice how many times I have stated that people do not READ you will understand... Out of all those participating you are the first one who actually took the time to READ the document... I commend you sir on that point.

However, as is the case with most skeptics... the reading is selective, and as his been numerously pointed out to us, you only quote the portion to suit your argument. LOL Fair enough we all do that...

But you forget to mention the description of the HE3 Fusion reactor cited in the patent, or the infrastructure to deliver this, the extra fuel tanks the shuttle carries and discards that can be replaced easily in orbit and the 'delivery' cost and schedule of the HE3 Deliveries of HE3 to LEo would run about 1 billion dollars a metric ton... deliver of s tons a month are possible and that would be double the energy needs of the USA

You say 'maybe future' we say 'already happening' The data is sound, its simply a small difference of time schedules we are talking about.

Oh, and using Gary McKinnon's word as evidence? Wow. From the infamous Gary McKinnon, and I quote: "I was smoking a lot of dope at the time. Not good for the intellect." Need I say more?

Gary McKinnon mentions finding an image in a certain directory at JSC... as already covered in the moon thread with the participation of even a few skeptics (JRA was present) we were looking at images in that directory... those images did not show secret ships, they were Apollo .tiffs. While we were discussing them in the thread they were removed.

Gary used hacking techniques to gain access he is doing hard time... we just stumbled across it from a directory that JRA linked us to.

At the same time we had a few days earlier received a letter discussing some minor point on my website... that email address was from the same location.

I do not know what Gary saw... I do not know how credible he is... I do know he saw something and is paying the price...

You skeptic scream for proof, yet you know full well there is going to be little real info in public sources. So the only way to find out is listen to insiders, hack into mainframes or get a spaceship to have a look.

In case one any insider who steps forward is made out to be an idiot... even if its Ben Rich or Boyd Bushman, senior execs at Lockheed

In case two only the foolish would take that route and expect to maintain their freedom

In case three... Matt is working on it

So as a final statement in this thread I will say that NOTHING we can find via public means will ever convince any of you. And picking little items apart simply means you lack the ability to 'look at the big picture' by gathering and assembling little pieces of the puzzle

President Clinton admitted to smoking pot... he became President... Need I say more?

I implore you to draft up a sound counterargument devoid of references to shady people or blurry images.

It's as I said nothing I could show you will convince you that your physics may be wrong and I am still on a quest for answers myself and far from drawing conclusions...

• Ben Rich, former head of Lockheed Skunkworks, said at a UCLA Alumni Speech in 1993, "We already have the means to travel among the stars, but these technologies are locked up in black projects and it would take an Act of God to ever get them out to benefit humanity...Anything you can imagine, we already know how to do."

• Boyd Bushman, a Lockheed Martin Senior Research Scientist, testifies about Anti Gravity, UFOs, Roswell, Wright Patterson AFB, UFOs and more, and demonstrates anti-gravity in the film.

Naturally these men are also "shady people'

Originally posted by Access Denied

It's a sad commentary on the human condition when, for example, one person can look at this photo of what appears to be an ordinary crater on the Moon and see it for what it most likely is (a crater) while another will see a “nuclear reactor” or whatever else they’ve been led to believe it is through the mere power of suggestion…

Gee AD I wonder who would look at that picture and could possibly think its a 'Nuclear Reactor"

But then THAT picture that you seem to like showing is from a NASA source, isn't it?

Well we have a NAVY source that shows it blue and glowing and we have three independent astronomers that show it looking a whole lot different

And we have Russian observations backed by JPL when they were still listing themselves over NASA in 1961 that recorded H and K spectrum emissions consistent with Cherenkov radiation.

I also talked with two physicists in San Jose one from Livermore and one from MIT who tend to 'lean' to our side of the fence That dialog is ongoing and we will publish it when the time is right

Now just for a minute forget about the Fusion Reactor theory and focus on the color images

Please give me your logical explanation why the crater is glowing electric blue in many photos from astronomers and in the Clementine and Galileo color images?

It's a sad commentary on the human condition when so many refuse to see what's happening around them

:shk:

Wait till you see the FLEET of Russian Progress cargo ships on the assembly line in the Shuttle thread

And absolute proof that there is more than one spacecraft docked at ISS

Zorgon, nearly every time you mention the word 'sceptic' it's with malice but you should acknowledge the vital role played by healthy scepticism in areas of conspiracy, don't you agree?

Originally posted by Corum
Zorgon, nearly every time you mention the word 'sceptic' it's with malice but you should acknowledge the vital role played by healthy scepticism in areas of conspiracy, don't you agree?

Oh no No malice I like skeptics... They are very useful for research.
But as you say HEALTHY skepticism In my books that does not include those that resort to personal attacks when they can't win there case. That serves little purpose, don't you agree?

I only got my dander up in this thread because quite frankly I am tired of these guys starting so many "bash John" threads... Look in search there are MANY. They must really love him to shine so much attention his way.

Weak moment won't happen again



Question to JRA

How many spacecraft were docked at ISS when Endeavor docked in August

You can go down and buy a 100 dollar cheesy kids 8-10" refractor telescope and see it glowing blue with your own eyes.

Wow.

One liner post.........so sue me.

Originally posted by sean
You can go down and buy a 100 dollar cheesy kids 8-10" refractor telescope and see it glowing blue with your own eyes.

Oh wow... You are indeed correct....

BUT

Here is the best resolution color image from the Galileo Satellite




Aristarchus is glowing so bright it overpowers the spacecraft Camera. Now THAT picture cost the taxpayers over 100 million Dollars

Here is a picture from a "Cheesy kids 8-10" refractor telescope" taken in England... and this image won't cost the taxpayers anything



It shows Aristarchus glowing

Now compare the two and tell me who has the best value for your tax dollar?
NASA or Pegasus

PS The version we have is only 80% of the original, which is 111 megs

Originally posted by zorgon

Now just for a minute forget about the Fusion Reactor theory and focus on the color images

Please give me your logical explanation why the crater is glowing electric blue in many photos from astronomers and in the Clementine and Galileo color images?

I'm sorry, where is this electric blue supposed to be? Maybe we have different ideas of what electric blue should look like.

It's a sad commentary on the human condition when so many refuse to see what's happening around them

Its a sad commentary on the human condition when someone can look at a lump of 4 billion or so year old rocks and take the flying leap of absurdity to claim it represents a nuclear reactor, a spaceport, a children's playground, and Disneyland's moon vacation spot. The rest of us just see the moon. We must be blind not to see what you clearly have 100% proof positive evidence (but have yet to present, claiming to be holding back the "good stuff" until the time is right or something.....very convenient).

I just can't see what you claim on the moon. Don't get me wrong, I would love to be able to see. It would be cool if you guys were right, but to most of us your just making fools out of yourselves in front of everybody.

Wait till you see the FLEET of Russian Progress cargo ships on the assembly line in the Shuttle thread

And absolute proof that there is more than one spacecraft docked at ISS

What is a "fleet" of cargo ships mean? That they are inexpensive to build (comparatively so), reliable, and that they are selling them to other countries as well? That's what it means to me. But I can see how that would mean nothing but sinister, conspiracy related nefarious activities to you.

And, ah, yes more than one ship at a time can dock at the ISS, in multiple locations no less. Unless your picture is of two space shuttles or something docked there at the same time I fail to see how this is news or means anything.

Originally posted by zorgon
Question to JRA

How many spacecraft were docked at ISS when Endeavor docked in August

There were two Russian cargo supply spacecrafts. Progress M-60 and M-61. So three in total with Endeavour. Why do you ask anyway? I haven't really been following this thread.

Originally posted by jra

There were two Russian cargo supply spacecrafts. Progress M-60 and M-61. So three in total with Endeavour. Why do you ask anyway? I haven't really been following this thread.

Well thats what I thought. So why weren't they all in those spectacular photos os ISS? Thats why I asked if there were any photos of the entire ISS so we could see the 2 Progresses but aparently somebody had other ideas. I think most folks who saw those great pictures thought Endeavour was the only spacecraft docked. Thanks.

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts

Its a sad commentary on the human condition when someone can look at a lump of 4 billion or so year old rocks and take the flying leap of absurdity to claim it represents a nuclear reactor, a spaceport, a children's playground, and Disneyland's moon vacation spot.


a truly sad commentary on the human condition is when someone can look at rocks, claim to know how old they are (or to know ANYTHING about them) yet ridicule someone else because they use tested, tried, and true techniques (used by US military in satellite photo's) and pick up on what appear to be anomolous locations/objects.

The rest of us just see the moon. We must be blind not to see what you clearly have 100% proof positive evidence (but have yet to present, claiming to be holding back the "good stuff" until the time is right or something.....very convenient).

rest of who? There are some here that agree with you. There are some that don't. Then there are a whole bunch more riding the fence.

So....are you here because you don't believe in UFO's, aliens, or any conspiracies? If so, perhaps you might want to try a different site. I can tell you that if you are worried about the naive person reading this, you are better off worrying about feeding the homeless in your area, or maybe could take a run at helping care for th elderly at a local nursing home? Your big heart is commended....but your efforts may be of better use elsewhere, considering the site you are posting on.

I just can't see what you claim on the moon. Don't get me wrong, I would love to be able to see. It would be cool if you guys were right, but to most of us your just making fools out of yourselves in front of everybody.

there is that assumption of the scale of support for your line of thinking again. perhaps you are right...but i will again remind you that the audience here is not skewed in such favor. Thus, your statement of "most" people here thinking they are fools is just not quite correct. Unless you are trolling this site and associate with people who would likely not be coming to post here....

Originally posted by johnlear
Well thats what I thought. So why weren't they all in those spectacular photos os ISS? Thats why I asked if there were any photos of the entire ISS so we could see the 2 Progresses but aparently somebody had other ideas. I think most folks who saw those great pictures thought Endeavour was the only spacecraft docked. Thanks.

Or you just didn't see them. I see two of them in this photo and in many others. www.nasa.gov... [Large image warning]

There's one at the bottom of the image, docked to the Zvezda modual and another docked on the other side of the Zarya modual. You can see its solar pannels sticking out roughly at a 45 degree angle.

I did not want to believe untill I downloaded the moon pics myself and clearly saw that structured "dome like" glowing thing...there is no way that it's natural..Also when I was a kid I used to look at all my fathers WWII books.. the pictures of the citys being bombed in black and white looked very much like what the supposed buildings and whatnot are.....those tubes with the supporting rings are very suspicious...What can look like that in nature...I guess I have to keep a very open mind about this stuff...But alot of what Mr Lear says begins to sound better....