NASA Scientist Fired - Promises Disclosure

doesn't take into account the gravity of the Earth-moon system. Since the moon only ever shows us one face, there is a difference in tidal forces from one side to the other. This difference shows up in calculations of the escape velocity for particles in the moons atmosphere. Bottom line? It is a possibility that johnlear is right on this one.

The moon A) does not have atmosphere anywhere near breathable, it does not have protection against the sun without a magnetic field generated by a molton spinning metal core like ours and is to far away for any consistent protection from Earth's fields.
This would prevent any atmosphere from being blasted off the surface. (which is what made Mars lifeless in the past, core cooled, stopped spinning, magnetic field dissappeares, atmopshere starts being chiseled off by the sun and radiation floods the surface as more and more atmosphere slowly gets eroded away.) But sadly the moon does not have a spinning metal core.

b) If tidal forces caused by the earth would be in play it would be a pulling motion, making the atmosphere higher (or 'thicker') on the side facing the earth not the 'dark side'. (the earth pulls, not pushes.. high tide on earth is on the side facing the moon not the opposite side for comparison).

So yes an atmosphere just like a body of water can be subject to tidal forces, making the 'atmosphere-level' slightly higher just like the ocean level on the side facing the attracting body.
2 issues with this, the atmosphere does not change thickness as in density due to this, it just means the height on the opposite side will be a bit lower and the facing side will be a bit heigher, but the molecular density will remain the same (tides on earth just influence location of water not it's density).
But just like a creature living on the bottom of the ocean, you on the surface would not notice it because the level differences all play out far above your head.
Second problem. He says the atmosphere is thicker on the dark side away from the pull, which is just contradicting basic science...

[edit on 2/11/2007 by David2012]

Originally posted by SpaceMax

An atmosphere on the moon!
Cool, this is gonna make my work much easier.
Where can I find the spectrograph data?

Thanks for the post SpaceMax. Here is the Lunar Atmopshere Data Sheet from NASA.

Lunar Atmosphere Data Sheet
Diurnal temperature range: >100 K to

reply to post by johnlear


Wow John. Never would have thunk of it.

I don't need to read any further. It's makes sense, in an unbelievable sort of way. I've always thought, why didn't the rich mining communities pool their resources more to explore the moon.

It all makes sense now. They already are!

How are they getting back and forth? Couldn't be the shuttle.

My guess is, the have a couple of giant planes circling the outer edges of the atmosphere of Earth, that are capable of space travel. An aircraft leaves from earth, that is capable of flying up to connect with this aircraft.

That would be how I would do it, if I had unlimited resources.

But that is not the question. Why are we here, that is the question. And we are blessed in this, that we happen to know the answer. Yes, in this immense confusion one thing alone is clear. We are waiting for Godot to come.

What I didn't like it when I checked the Dark Mission website is that this guys are charging 150 $ for the Dark Mission Seminar which to be honest sucks. If they care so much to share their information with masses and to spread the truth, can't they be more reasonable and not rip people off ?

Originally posted by stompk

How are they getting back and forth? Couldn't be the shuttle.

Thanks for the post stompk. We'll be posting more on the transportation system used both here and on thelivingmoon.com. Basically the ore is liquified and sent to lunar orbit where it is transferred to a shuttle (not THE shuttle) and sent to low earth orbit where it is transferred again and sent to earth.

Discovery will undock on Sunday from the ISS. It will take approximately 52 hours before it lands at Kennedy Spaceport. Ask yourself what they could be doing for those 52 hours for a trip that should only take 20 minutes?

Hint: ISS is not the ONLY space station orbiting earth. It's just the only you KNOW about.

My guess is, the have a couple of giant planes circling the outer edges of the atmosphere of Earth, that are capable of space travel. An aircraft leaves from earth, that is capable of flying up to connect with this aircraft.

You may be correct but I would imagine that the plane itself flys into low earth orbit to connect with the shuttle from the moon.

Thanks for the post.

You can see alot of these images and video of bases on the moon on youtube. NASA officials are comming out of the closet.

Originally posted by David2012

I thought Lear always said modern active human filled structures on the moon?

Thanks for the post David2012. There are many cities on the moon on both the near side and far side. Here is a photo of a city near Petavius B. The photo was taken by the crew of Apollo 8 (AS8-12-2189):

1 question for Lear, can you explain your atmosphere to me? without screwing basic science 101, all respect for you.

Here is the NASA data on the lunar atmosphere:

Lunar Atmosphere Data Sheet
Diurnal temperature range: >100 K to

Originally posted by stompk

How are they getting back and forth? Couldn't be the shuttle.

My guess is, the have a couple of giant planes circling the outer edges of the atmosphere of Earth, that are capable of space travel. An aircraft leaves from earth, that is capable of flying up to connect with this aircraft.

Have we developed such craft using back engineered alien technology? You can bet your bottom dollar we have! All this may seem to be in the realm of science fiction. But what's going on with those black projects where billions of dollars have been spent? Making paper planes?

And then, according to ‘insiders’ the science and technology at these projects are at least half a century ahead of mainstream physics! And this can only be possible by back-engineering alien technology. A quantum leap which otherwise would have taken decades to achieve.

So, what do we have here? According to Dr Richard Boylan, Ph.D. ......

> The Nautilus. This is a space- faring craft, a secret military spacecraft which operates by magnetic pulsing. It makes twice-a-week trips up to the secret military-intelligence space station, which has been in deep space for the past thirty years, and manned by U.S. and USSR (now CIS) military astronauts.

> TR3-B Astra. A large triangular anti-gravity craft within the U.S. fleet.

> Aurora SR-33A. A moderate-sized spacefaring vehicle, which can operate on both conventional fuel and antigravity field propulsion systems.

> Lockheed-Martin X-33A VentureStar. A military spaceplane with electrogravitics (antigravity) system on board.

> Lockheed X-22A. Another space-faring vehicle which is a two-man antigravity disc fighter from LMs Skunk Works.

> TR3-A 'Pumpkinseed' . This is a super-fast air vehicle that uses pulse detonation technology for propulsion.

> TAW-50. A hypersonic, antigravity space fighter-bomber having a mach 50 capability and therefore is capable of going into space, and does.

More here…
You may also like to have a peek at some of the papers on anti-grav propulsion from LANL here…

Cheers!

reply to post by zorgon


OP, I have not yet read through all the articles on this, but I have to say, Pravda is a tabloid site, so the immediate source quoted is very suspect. I don't actually know about the other sites' credibility yet, but I'd avoid using Pravda as a source in the future for anything you want taken seriously.

However, I'll be curious to see what else can be found on the subject, and will give the rest of the articles a good read. I just wanted to warn you about Pravda first.

Here is a drawing of the spaceplane spotted over Northen Ireland in 2004. It was enormous. 10 times as big as a Boeing 747!.



And here is a map of where it was spotted:

Originally posted by GeeGee
Microbes on Mars? Isn't there a lot more there than that?

What if these "microbes" are actually something more akin to nano's? Silicone based life forms, fully self replicating and self sustaining?

Why would it be hard to believe that "microbe's" don't exist at all points in our local system? Like fractals, life seems to be a rule in the design of the universe. Existence is constructed on its most fundamental levels to promote life, and to promote specific designs, and functions of these designs. They are all repeated over and over in scale (this is why we can see animals and shapes in the clouds).

It is all building blocks of building blocks, of building blocks. And life is one of the by products of this design structure, as they both rely on the same dynamics.

Originally posted by mikesingh
Have we developed such craft using back engineered alien technology? You can bet your bottom dollar we have!

Thanks but no thanks. I can find much better uses for a buck.

And then, according to ‘insiders’ the science and technology at these projects are at least half a century ahead of mainstream physics! And this can only be possible by back-engineering alien technology. A quantum leap which otherwise would have taken decades to achieve.

So, what do we have here? According to Dr Richard Boylan, Ph.D. ......

> The Nautilus. This is a space- faring craft, a secret military spacecraft which operates by magnetic pulsing. It makes twice-a-week trips up to the secret military-intelligence space station, which has been in deep space for the past thirty years, and manned by U.S. and USSR (now CIS) military astronauts.

This reads a bunsh of pseudo science blah. "Magnetic pulsing"? That's deep. How about electrostatic coherent amalgamation? Or rotational tensor conversion? As you deemed important to indicate Boylan's degree twice, as in "Dr" and in "PhD", I need to point out that he's an anthropologist and not an engineer, so he better sticks to ancient ceramics and tribal behaviours and stays out of "magnetic pulse" business where he understands just a little bit more than primitive tribes he should really study.

Originally posted by thelibra

OP, I have not yet read through all the articles on this, but I have to say, Pravda is a tabloid site, so the immediate source quoted is very suspect. I don't actually know about the other sites' credibility yet, but I'd avoid using Pravda as a source in the future for anything you want taken seriously. However, I'll be curious to see what else can be found on the subject, and will give the rest of the articles a good read. I just wanted to warn you about Pravda first.

Thanks for the post thelibra. After nearly 210 posts and 20,000 views in less than a day I would consider your warning either too late, not well researched or not well thought out.

But thanks anyway it is nonetheless appreciated.

reply to post by johnlear


As stated, that is an estimate of the upper bound at night, under cold conditions. 10^5 particles per cc is a wispy trace of an atmosphere, and in my view doesn't really qualify as one. It's just some trace gases escaped from the regolith.

The physics of why the moon doesn't have a real atmosphere is very basic: the velocity of the gases exceeds the escape velocity of the body. This is also why very little He or H2 are found in Earth's atmosphere - they escape into space. For the moon to have an atmosphere, it would have to be much lower peak temperatures (like Pluto), or much more massive.

An atmopshere certainly would show up in lunar occultation experiments, which are don all the time by both amateur and professional astronomers. The results resoundingly support the null hypothesis (I've spoken with one of the leading observers in this field) - try it yourself:

www.lunar-occultations.com...

The argument from authority doesn't hold up in the face of real, physical evidence.

Originally posted by johnlear
Mathematician/Astronomer, who calculated on the basis the angular difference between the theoretical and observed positions and distance from the earth to the moon Hansen hypothesized that the moons center of gravity was 59 kilometers further from earth than the geometric center.

The radius of the moon is 1738 km. John, please get out your calculator and divide 59 by 1738, then try to estimate the effect on gravity. Claiming that this could lead to an appreciable difference in atmospheric pressure (such in "need for domes vs no domes") is a utterly silly proposition. You can get a lot of mileage out of that calculator, John. Use the tools.

I’m still not sure about the moon having an atmosphere. I am however very fascinated about their being cities on the moon .

Dark Mission: NASA'S Corrupted Science Pt. 3

About This Video

Richard C. Hoagland is a former space science museum curator; a former NASA consultant, and during the historic Apollo Missions to the Moon, was science advisor to Walter Cronkite and CBS News. For over 20 years, Hoagland has been leading an outside scientific team in a critically acclaimed independent analysis of possible intelligently-designed artifacts on Mars. Richard and his team's investigations have been quietly extended to include over 30 years of previously hidden data from NASA, Soviet, and Pentagon missions to the Moon.

Originally posted by johnlear
Thanks for the post thelibra. After nearly 210 posts and 20,000 views in less than a day I would consider your warning either too late, not well researched or not well thought out.

It's nice that you feel that way, but frankly, that's not really your call to make, John. Part of my job in helping to build and maintain the credibility of ATS is to point out when our members are using a tabloid as a source for reference.

It is true that this came later than an optimal response time, but I would be remiss in my job if I didn't at least attempt to get people using sources other than Pravda to try and support their stories. It is only through responsible, credible reporting that this sort of information eventually ceases solely being the demesne of crackpots, and can stand up to further investigation.

So, while you are certainly entitled to your viewpoint of my "Pravda" remark, I would consider it a very short-sighted one. My goal is not to dismiss the story out of hand, it is to get users to avoid justifying claims based upon articles from tabloid rags.

Originally posted by disownedsky

The physics of why the moon doesn't have a real atmosphere is very basic: the velocity of the gases exceeds the escape velocity of the body. This is also why very little He or H2 are found in Earth's atmosphere - they escape into space. For the moon to have an atmosphere, it would have to be much lower peak temperatures (like Pluto), or much more massive.

Thanks for the post disownedsky. Many have made the same mistake as you because they are assuming no.1 that you know what the actual temperatures are and that no. 2 the moon's gravity is one sixth that of earth. In fact the moon's gravity is at least 64% of earths and may be more in the vicinity of mascons (if they exist) or on the farside. The temperatures on the moon are much different than you are told by NASA.

The argument from authority doesn't hold up in the face of real, physical evidence.

Real physical evidence would be pictures of cities? Right?