|
Flying John Lears Alienship
|
View this Thread in Original format
| djSlain |
Does anyone know a bit about John Lear? He's the son of the man who made the Lear Jet company. Supposedly, through so much association and achievements in aviation, he got together with a LOT of people regarding Aliens and UFOs and people like Hellboy. I don't know how many listen to Coast to Coast AM Radio, but Art Bell (world famous talk show host) gave an interview to John Lear. Wow, it's amazing.
Personally, i believe it. The JFK motive, intergalactic wars, AIDs, rectal cores up to the colon, abductions and negotiation with aliens.
here is the website with the best information:
http://www.greatdreams.com/John-Lear.htm |
|
|
| DJYaNiK |
Very freaky stuff.
I don't believe any of it, though.;)
Suprisingly, I read through nearly half of the stuff. |
|
|
| djSlain |
the freakiest parts to me were
:
-9/11 Pentagon. The plane had to come really close to the ground to be on target. it struck on the 3rd floor, which is pretty damn low for a plane. There was a TREMENDOUS amount of lift at this altitude it would've required a pilot of unrealistic strength to keep the plane on target.
-The explanation for why we see "in god we trust" on money
-the invention of christ by aliens. |
|
|
| DJYaNiK |
| Dunno about you but I was a bit more freaked out about the statement that the Pennsylvania plane was shot down. |
|
|
| Boomer187 |
what a dork...
John Lear suspects that Venus does not have the sulfuric acid atmosphere with an 800 degree temperature that we've all been led to believe and instead is a planet very similar to ours, but with a similar, but much more technologically advanced civilization.
ill read it all later but it sounds like another paranoid schizoid. |
|
|
| djSlain |
| quote: | Originally posted by Boomer187
what a dork...
John Lear suspects that Venus does not have the sulfuric acid atmosphere with an 800 degree temperature that we've all been led to believe and instead is a planet very similar to ours, but with a similar, but much more technologically advanced civilization.
ill read it all later but it sounds like another paranoid schizoid. |
1. If someone had a thread about their best friend dying, ur avatar would make things feel a lot better.
2. I have my suspicions about Bob Lazar, but i think John Lear has a pretty good explanation for everyone who tries to disprove him
i just finished reading the website and yes, there was a question that stumped him. Aliens put implants in their abductess. "all attempts to remove the implant causes the patient to die." then someone suggests
"why not take the implant out of a person who is already dead"?
(no comment)
:( |
|
|
| Ocean-Glow |
Just wondering if this is the real pic of space,,, why dont i see any stars on the backround ??
 |
|
|
| Mebot |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ocean-Glow
Just wondering if this is the real pic of space,,, why dont i see any stars on the backround ??
|
this question was sparked in the whole moon-landing debate. im not exactly sure if this is the case or not, but i think it's because the sun reflecting on the moon's surface makes it hard to see the stars dim in the background.
Although i think this question was raised about the lack of stars in the reflection of the astronauts helmet.
Wheres occrider? he'll tell you |
|
|
| djSlain |
| does anyone believe that the US is the biggest market for drug trade? i would think this could only happen if there was a public government (president, chiefs, etc), and there was a SECRET government, one that the president wouldn't even know about. Public gov is trying to stop drug traffiking while the secret government is growing the traffiking at a much faster rate |
|
|
| Ste |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ocean-Glow
Just wondering if this is the real pic of space,,, why dont i see any stars on the backround ??
|
resolution photo. |
|
|
| Streakfury |
I must admit, looking at some of the evidence to suggest a fake moon landing, it does seem quite convincing. Of course some of the discrepancies can be explained (such as the one above) but then some of them really are baffling. Personally, I find it hard to believe that man achieved something as outstanding as landing on the moon and returned safely using spacecraft with less computing power than a modern calculator. Considering what those shuttles had to endure, it does seem a little far fetched.
:) |
|
|
| Lumps |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ocean-Glow
Just wondering if this is the real pic of space,,, why dont i see any stars on the backround ??
|
Gripped from Bad Astronomy - asnwers ALL your motherin moon hoax questions!!!
:::::.:..... ... .. . .
Bad: The first bit of actual evidence brought up is the lack of stars in the pictures taken by the Apollo astronauts from the surface of the Moon. Without air, the sky is black, so where are the stars?
Good: The stars are there! They're just too faint to be seen.
This is usually the first thing HBs talk about when discussing the Hoax. That amazes me, as it's the silliest assertion they make. However, it appeals to our common sense: when the sky is black here on Earth, we see stars. Therefore we should see them from the Moon as well.
I'll say this here now, and return to it many times: the Moon is not the Earth. Conditions there are weird, and our common sense is likely to fail us.
The Moon's surface is airless. On Earth, our thick atmosphere scatters sunlight, spreading it out over the whole sky. That's why the sky is bright during the day. Without sunlight, the air is dark at night, allowing us to see stars.
On the Moon, the lack of air means that the sky is dark. Even when the Sun is high off the horizon during full day, the sky near it will be black. If you were standing on the Moon, you would indeed see stars, even during the day.
So why aren't they in the Apollo pictures? Pretend for a moment you are an astronaut on the surface of the Moon. You want to take a picture of your fellow space traveler. The Sun is low off the horizon, since all the lunar landings were done at local morning. How do you set your camera? The lunar landscape is brightly lit by the Sun, of course, and your friend is wearing a white spacesuit also brilliantly lit by the Sun. To take a picture of a bright object with a bright background, you need to set the exposure time to be fast, and close down the aperture setting too; that's like the pupil in your eye constricting to let less light in when you walk outside on a sunny day.
So the picture you take is set for bright objects. Stars are faint objects! In the fast exposure, they simply do not have time to register on the film. It has nothing to do with the sky being black or the lack of air, it's just a matter of exposure time. If you were to go outside here on Earth on the darkest night imaginable and take a picture with the exact same camera settings the astronauts used, you won't see any stars!
It's that simple. Remember, this the usually the first and strongest argument the HBs use, and it was that easy to show wrong. Their arguments get worse from here. |
|
|
|
|
