NASA Scientist Fired - Promises Disclosure

Originally posted by buddhasystem

By the way, I hope you are satisfied with the density calculation which FLD pointed you to. In the realm of fantasy you are so prone to find yourself, not only NASA possesses an antigrav device they installed on the Apollo craft, there is also a super-gravity device hidden inside the Moon! Where does this end?

Thanks for the post BS. I am not sure where it ends but I think the super-gravity device you are talking about hidden inside the moon is wired to this nuclear/fusion reactor they call Aristarchus that NAZA has been trying to hide for the past 50 years:





You should realize that if this is a nuclear reactor that it is about 25 miles in diameter and we are talking about some very serious power generating equipment.

Its possible that it could not only place itself in orbit but hold itself in orbit.

Thanks for your input on the hidden gravity generator inside the moon. You may have solved the mystery.

Originally posted by zorgon
To know that one would have to have the figures that they used in their calculations. Just to say they sent the craft around the Moon and used it in a gravitational sling is useless info to prove anything without the actual figures.

Please be so kind as to produce those figures to validate your argument. I really wish you skeptics would at least try to provide somereal figures instead of just speculating

A decent treatment of the math related to the calculation of the lunar swing-by can be found here:

www.scielo.br...


The actual parameters of the mission:
www.xs4all.nl...

Pretty much all of the fuel was spent:
en.wikipedia.org...

The difference between 16% and the falsely claimed 64% in Moon's gravity leads roughly to factor of 2 in characteristic velocities during the lunar maneuver, hence it would be easy for authors in the paper I just quoted to immediately find an inconsistency in the documented mission parameterd of HGS-1.

Originally posted by johnlear
You should realize that if this is a nuclear reactor that it is about 25 miles in diameter and we are talking about some very serious power generating equipment.

There is ZERO, abosultely ZERO basis for claiming we see a "reactor" in that pic... It could be an abandoned secret Nazi lunar base or the celestial abode of Jesus Christ. Maybe a gigantic space dinosaur took a dump, and as we all know such excrement tends to glow in the dark. Or it is an impact point of a comet. So why are you bringing this in? All of your your "arguments" remain at a dishearteningly childish level, and this is just sad.

[edit on 9-11-2007 by buddhasystem]

Originally posted by buddhasystem
He was and all others who flew missions to Moon were not? There is no explanation whatsoever about how he produced this number.

I guess you have me on ignore LOL The figure came from measurements on the Apollo spacecraft

Those who fly the missions don't make the calculations, they just sit in the tin can and steer according to the preset computer calculations with corrections fed by mission control... that's why its called mission control...

I personally don't think that 'fact' and 'remote viewer' belong in the same sentence any more than 'pharaoh' and 'bubble gum toothpaste'.

Well the CIA and other government agencies would disagree with you... They ran Project Stargate from 1968 to 1995 before they were forced to reveal this tax payer funded remote viewing project... Want a copy of the training manual released by the CIA?

Your welcome to your personal opinions, but that doesn't make em right...

I find both antigrav engine and remote viewing claims without merit... Along with the occult.

It wouldn't hurt if you actually researched anti gravity at LANL or other such places... and try adding "Gravity Shielding" to the search... (And if I need to explain how that is related... you didn't do any homework)

Oh, it's a certainty? LOL. Then your respected source, von Braun, is a cheat because like who needs rockets when there is antigrav.

Silly Lemming

You need rockets to keep the public entertained... Ever here of TT Brown? Try searching for that name and include Lear Inc and DoD

Of course I could just point you to it... but then you wouldn't look anyway...

Oh Okay for the rest of the viewers...

PROJECT WINTERHAVEN

Just look at the flow chart... follow DoD --> Prime Contractor..



[edit on 9-11-2007 by zorgon]

Originally posted by buddhasystem
No, rocket scientists cannot assert, based on their training, that the US possesses antigrav technology. It takes a conspiracy theorist with a nasty habit to throw around unsubstantiated anti-scientific claims, to "figure it out".

I assume you are not referring to JL when this info is already out there.

Furthermore, what is your benchmark for substantiated scientific claims?

Originally posted by MrPenny

Originally posted by johnlear
Now it is a fact that several remote viewers[...]It is also a certainty that the U.S. had antigrav capabilities......

Anti Gravity shown previous post If you want to see more document just visit the Pegasus site I have many works and white papers there.

As to remote viewing...

I would suggest that you educate yourself on what the CIA FBI etc have to say about it



SOURCE

I have posted this many times before so I won't fill the thread again... If you can't take a few minutes to follow a link (as you have stated in the past) then it seems silly for me to waste my time showing you the same stuff in different threads

For the others who are truly interested in remote viewing I would suggest the master himself - Ingo Swann

Ingo Swann's website Bio Mind Super Powers

Originally posted by zorgon
I guess you have me on ignore LOL The figure came from measurements on the Apollo spacecraft

Sure, and instruments fail once in a while. The fuel gauge on my VW Jeta used to show an empty tank for a whole week in a row (during which time I was apparently tapping the zero-point energy while commuting to work). I got it fixed eventually.

Those who fly the missions don't make the calculations

Well duh.

It wouldn't hurt if you actually researched anti gravity at LANL or other such places... and try adding "Gravity Shielding" to the search... (And if I need to explain how that is related... you didn't do any homework)

There was no anti-gravity LANL experiment. Two Russian gentlemen, Podkletnov and Frolov, did work in high Tc superconductors for other organizations and their results cannot be reproduced, enough said.

Oh, it's a certainty? LOL. Then your respected source, von Braun, is a cheat because like who needs rockets when there is antigrav.

Silly Lemming

Oh we are getting condescending here, my ignoramus of a friend. They way it appears, though, that a few people like yourself are lemmings who follow all the crap science and fantasy they can harvest in dark corners of the internet.


[edit on 9-11-2007 by buddhasystem]

Originally posted by COOL HAND
Go back and read the specific post where I talked about what my professors would be upset about and then rethink what you just wrote down.

LOL I did... seems it is you who does not understand... but by all means 'dumb' it down... since I am sure there are many reading the threads who have difficulty with the complicated physics you have been presenting

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Sure, and instruments fail once in a while. The fuel gauge on my VW Jeta used to show an empty tank for a whole week in a row (during which time I was apparently tapping the zero-point energy while commuting to work). I got it fixed eventually.

So it is your contention so far that von Braun can't remember converting kilometers to miles... and the Apollo spacecraft had faulty equipment..

Originally posted by johnlear
Making a fool of myself has been a life long quest

The quest can stop anytime you want it too John. You don't need to keep tipping at windmills.

I would consider that many knowledgeable people are reading these posts and you might want to temper your rants in that respect, just in case.

A rant?

Know what I mean?

Not really.

But thanks for the post and the information.

That's OK, but I noticed you completely avoided addressing a single point in my post.

If you could just answer a couple of straightforward questions:

1 What do you think the average density of the moon is?

2 Why scientists from places like Russia, France, Iran, Venezuela and China all pretend to themselves (and everyone else) that the moon doesn't have 64% earth gravity? In fact why would anyone in any country do what NASA says?

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Sure, and instruments fail once in a while. The fuel gauge on my VW Jeta used to show an empty tank for a whole week in a row (during which time I was apparently tapping the zero-point energy while commuting to work). I got it fixed eventually.

So it is your contention so far that von Braun can't remember converting kilometers to miles... and the Apollo spacecraft had faulty equipment..

I think the latter, a faulty instrument, is more likely. And it's infinitely more likely than stipulating that there was a non-faulty, functional anti-grav device onboard that ship.

The false claim the JL continues to perpetrate here, about the 64%G, ALSO CONTRADICTS THE KEPLER'S LAWS:

en.wikipedia.org...

All the math needed for proof can be found there, so please avail yourself to it and calculate the discrepancy, if you will...

So, is it your contention that Kepler was wrong (and newtonian mechanics is wrong as well)? Sorry, but this is so less likely than von Braun getting a screwy number.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Oh we are getting condescending here, my ignoramus of a friend. They way it appears, though, that a few people like yourself are lemmings who follow all the crap science and fantasy they can harvest in dark corners of the internet.

Well, I guess I am one of those lemmings too...since I dabble in all sorts of issues not mainstream!

Pity, BS, when I was just beginning to respect you for your undaunted and level headed methodology.

Go to the back of the class.

Originally posted by Matyas
Pity, BS, when I was just beginning to respect you for your undaunted and level headed methodology.

Oh, please don't concern yourself on my account, sir. I will survive w/o your appreciation of my scientific methodology (I do have a PhD in physics, thank you).

I rather encourage you to espouse respect for logic and firm grasp of scientific method.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Oh, please don't concern yourself on my account, sir. I will survive w/o your appreciation of my scientific methodology (I do have a PhD in physics, thank you).

I rather encourage you to espouse respect for logic and firm grasp of scientific method.

A PhD BS!!! Well, BS, please accept my apologies. I thought because of your arguments, spelling and grammar that you were just some yo-yo seeking fame and fortune by starting an argument with John Lear. I had no idea you had a PhD in Physics.

Please BS, accept my sincere apologies for completely misjudging you. I am going to refine my argument for the moons gravity of 64% of earth and come back swinging. Hopefully I will be able to 'loosen the chains of ignorance' and show you the beaming light of truth and freedom.

Thanks again for the post and startling information of your PhD BS.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Matyas
Pity, BS, when I was just beginning to respect you for your undaunted and level headed methodology.

Oh, please don't concern yourself on my account, sir. I will survive w/o your appreciation of my scientific methodology (I do have a PhD in physics, thank you).

I rather encourage you to espouse respect for logic and firm grasp of scientific method.

That is a very un-buddhist comment, now isn't it?

I am glad you find solace in your three additional letters. You have succeeded in becomming an expert in "knowing" what others have told you.

I guess as long as you impress yourself...

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

I am glad you find solace in your three additional letters. You have succeeded in becomming an expert in "knowing" what others have told you.

I guess as long as you impress yourself...

Thats an interesting way of looking at it BFFT. "Becoming an expert in 'knowing' what others have told you".......but then taking that knowledge and Piling it Higher and Deeper.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I rather encourage you to espouse respect for logic and firm grasp of scientific method.

Firm grasp has more to do with surface gravity and very little with neutral point. You can still have a 1/6E gravity in spite of a neutral point of some 43,000 miles. This happens when you factor in perigee and apogee, and the Sun. So then, what is the mean?

I personally think surface gravity is closer to 1/3EG, and tidal pull is much higher, allowing lower escape velocities throughout the lunar month. There is some really heavy rock up there.

Originally posted by zorgon
If you can't take a few minutes to follow a link (as you have stated in the past) then it seems silly for me to waste my time showing you the same stuff in different threads

Ah but I do follow your links zorgon ol' buddy. The problem is, they inevitably turn out to not really say what you insinuate they do. Over and over again.

But, as I expect....you will grab a hold of the slimmest bit of information you find and turn it into a thesis. A generally sloppy thesis at that.

Originally posted by johnlear
Thanks for the post MoneyPenny.

That's not even remotely funny. However, it is in keeping with your bad taste.

Originally posted by ebe51
Speaking of Gravity here's a site with a nice little theory of electro-gravity...

I just returned from there, clean site!

As theories go, its as solid as any I have seen. It even supports my own Principle of Electrogravitics.

Keep in mind you are not addressing power requirements and inertia. I think of it as the "impulse drive" of "gravitational engineering".