NASA's biggest lie to be exposed.

NASA's Biggest Lie to be Exposed.

Moderator: Super Moderators

User avatar
MAD
Pirate
Posts: 4250
Joined: 07-15-2002 02:00 AM

PLEASE BE INFORMED THAT THERE IS A SANTA CLAUS!

Post by MAD » 05-10-2006 08:40 AM

Last edited by MAD on 05-10-2006 08:59 AM, edited 1 time in total.
“There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle.
The other is as though everything is a miracle." ~ Albert Einstein ~

User avatar
MAD
Pirate
Posts: 4250
Joined: 07-15-2002 02:00 AM

OH, WHAT HAPPENED TO SANTA!

Post by MAD » 05-10-2006 08:49 AM

Apparently, not everyone believed that Santa Claus exists......
“There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle.
The other is as though everything is a miracle." ~ Albert Einstein ~

rolede
Pirate
Posts: 516
Joined: 01-03-2003 03:00 AM

Back to what was said

Post by rolede » 06-08-2006 07:23 PM

""There are great ideas undiscovered, breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truths protective layers and places to go beyond belief"

I think RELIGIOUS MYTH is the "Protective Layer" he is talking about, and "to go beyond belief" means to think logically and scientificly, unhampered by a Belief system that is at odds with with those two approaches.

What is on the Moon will probably put to the Lie, much of Religious Teaching.
One in four people is unbalanced; think of
three friends-if they seem okay-you're it

Good judgment comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgment.

TurboPlex
Guest
Posts: 15
Joined: 06-12-2006 12:03 AM

22 pages

Post by TurboPlex » 06-12-2006 03:37 AM

Hi there!

Let's see I've read first 22 pages of this thread so far and up to that point John Lear sez no one had caught on to what the Big Lie about the moon was yet! Talk about getting a lot of mileage out of being famous! How many of us not so famous people do y'all think could to string along a whole newsgroup for months on end without ever getting to the point?

Can someone just direct me to the page where either someone guesses correctly or Captain Lear comes out and says the Big lie about the moon is (for example: "we didn't get there first, it was the aliens?") or whatever the big lie really is? Are we THERE yet????

Anyhooo...As far as unexplained anomalous images from NASA, that somehow got by their censors, my all time favorite is the one taken of some gadget left by someone on the Asteroid Eros. According to the original NASA document this "boulder" is 148 feet across.

Image
Originally, after NASA published the picture, Hoagie found it, but I don't know if he still has a page on it that's still up or not...

Here is the link to where this is subject is covered on our site, however, complete with my 400 percent resize and enhancement w/photoed:

http://www.ussdiscovery.com/ErosObject.htm

Yes, it's really me, the not so famous Jim Ostrowski, the website maintenance guy for http://www.ussdiscovery.com
AKA Turbomagnetics Research Associates. I usually go by the Screen name of JimO. so call me that, I would feel funny if someone actually called me TurboPlex! I just wanted to feel at home with all of ya "prefer to remain anonymous and not so famous" folks and make up a hokey screen name like most of y'all.

Everybody stay cool!:)

JimO

User avatar
Barbie
Pirate
Posts: 1695
Joined: 03-26-2006 09:45 AM

Can't wait ... can't wait!

Post by Barbie » 06-12-2006 11:52 AM

John, I've been a huge fan of yours for many years. GO FOR IT! We fans will back you all the way. And watch your back--the Ninjas are everywhere.

User avatar
Dale O Sea
Rogue Wingnut Pirate
Posts: 17339
Joined: 04-19-2003 10:10 PM
Contact:

Post by Dale O Sea » 06-12-2006 12:41 PM

Welcome to the forum JimO. I think the main "secret" was the fact there is a thin atmosphere on the Moon, among other things. I haven't read this in awhile but that's what I got from it.
[size=0]"Question everything, especially your media and their motives. -Me[/size]

TurboPlex
Guest
Posts: 15
Joined: 06-12-2006 12:03 AM

Post by TurboPlex » 06-12-2006 01:59 PM

Welcome to the forum JimO.
Thanks! Nice to be here.

Just to let you and the others here know, I am a big fan of Art Bell from way back when he was only on shortwave ('93) and I listen when I can to Geo Noory's show. Not that I believe in all the stuff their guests have to say, but I like the way George and Art always try to be polite to their guests and try to follow their point, in an open minded way.
I think the main "secret" was the fact there is a thin atmosphere on the Moon, among other things. I haven't read this in awhile but that's what I got from it.


Really? Hmmm... He's not saying that this atmosphere is sufficient to breathe or anything is he? I think astronomers generally acknowledge that the moon is capable and has been observed to vent gasses now and then. I don't think this is any big secret or is being lied about by NASA.

There was one point that I got to in this thread where someone posted a picture of the Earth taken from the vicinity of the moon from lunar orbit. This picture illustrated that there was no distortion of the earth's image caused by any alleged lunar atmosphere. Lear tried to discredit the picture that his respondent posted by implying something to the effect that NASA could have or probably did photoshop the picture.

But the fact is that frequently, other planets in the solar system, and occasionally, stars that lie in the ecliptic plane do get "occulted" by the lunar edge as seen from the earth. The fact is that there have many measurements taken by astronomers in these events trying to detect any trace of distortion that may be caused by an atmosphere. No resemblance to anything even approaching a "thin" atmosphere has ever been detected.

I say that Mr Lear (if that is really him) has been "pulling your legs", if indeed he is claiming that NASA is lying about such a thing. We knew that the moon had no appreciable atmosphere way before NASA was ever even organized.

So anyway does anyone have any comment about my eros pictures? Here is Hoagie's page where I first found out about this:

http://www.enterprisemission.com/corbett.htm

I think this thing looks like a tower that might be used to house a motor/tractor belt that hauls things up out of hypothesised mineshaft. The long tube at the bottom is probably a big airlock where the mined materials were (are?) processed.

Image

Whatya'all think?

JimO

User avatar
Dale O Sea
Rogue Wingnut Pirate
Posts: 17339
Joined: 04-19-2003 10:10 PM
Contact:

Post by Dale O Sea » 06-12-2006 03:51 PM

I can personally vouch for the fact that it is indeed John Lear posting here. We've exchanged many emails too - and couple of snail mails. He's the genuine article. As for his theories - I'll leave those for him to defend or not. He doesn't come around much lately - might be busy at the mine?

Image

As for your image, I even got the original from NASA and played with it in Photoshop -- but see nothing really distinguishable in it. Not enough resolution to make out any discernible detail for my untrained eye. Just a very bright, irregular artifact that could be anything. I don't see much in Mr. Lear's pix either tho.

Maybe someone else?
[size=0]"Question everything, especially your media and their motives. -Me[/size]

Clatu
Pirate
Posts: 2732
Joined: 12-31-2005 08:52 AM

Post by Clatu » 06-12-2006 07:11 PM

Dale O Sea wrote: I can personally vouch for the fact that it is indeed John Lear posting here. We've exchanged many emails too - and couple of snail mails. He's the genuine article. As for his theories - I'll leave those for him to defend or not. He doesn't come around much lately - might be busy at the mine?

Image

As for your image, I even got the original from NASA and played with it in Photoshop -- but see nothing really distinguishable in it. Not enough resolution to make out any discernible detail for my untrained eye. Just a very bright, irregular artifact that could be anything. I don't see much in Mr. Lear's pix either tho.

Maybe someone else?

________________________

Mr John Lear. It's a honor that you post so openly here and at NHZ. I respect your views on all things so very much Sir.

Clatu

Alien-BC
Pirate
Posts: 4690
Joined: 04-20-2006 03:23 PM

Re: 22 pages

Post by Alien-BC » 06-13-2006 05:39 AM

TurboPlex wrote: Hi there!



Can someone just direct me to the page where either someone guesses correctly or Captain Lear comes out and says the Big lie about the moon is (for example: "we didn't get there first, it was the aliens?") or whatever the big lie really is? Are we THERE yet????



Forget the moon how the hell did the astronauts get through the Van Allen Belt alive in the Apollo?

The Apollo capsules had no protection from the Belt’s radiation.

TurboPlex
Guest
Posts: 15
Joined: 06-12-2006 12:03 AM

Post by TurboPlex » 06-13-2006 01:10 PM

Forget the moon how the hell did the astronauts get through the Van Allen Belt alive in the Apollo?


Hello alien-BC!

For a concise summary the Van Allen Radiation Belt hazards to space travel, in particular the Apollo missions, Click here:

http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/waw/mad/mad19.html

Solar Flares would be next on the list to deal with and are separate issue, but related to the general argument that we could not have made it to the moon because of excessive radiation in space.

Relevant to the problem of solar flares, The following is a cut and paste of a discussion I had elsewhere. This explanation extinguished this particular controversy, but if you have any further arguments I would be happy to hear them:
"Izzy" wrote:

http://internet.ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo5.htm

This level of radiation dose is confirmed by Space Biomedical Research Institute in Humans in Space:
"SOLAR FLARE
Very hazardous and intermittent but may persist for 1 to 2 days.
High energy protons travel at the speed of light so there is no time to get under cover.
Protected dose 10-100 REM/hr
Unprotected dose Fatal"

http://www.au.af.mil/Spacecast/app-f/app-f.html

The main space weather hazard to human life is the ionizing radiation resulting from exposure to high energy particles. These energetic particles may come from distant stars and galaxies (galactic cosmic radiation); they may be found trapped in planetary radiation belts, such as the Earth's Van Allen radiation belts; or they may be ejected into space by the Sun in the solar wind or more rapidly by solar flare eruptions (figure 2). To put the space weather radiation hazard to human life in perspective, at geostationary orbit, with only 0.1 gm/cm2 of aluminum shielding thickness, the predicted radiation dose (REM) for one year continuous exposure, with minimum-moderate solar activity, is estimated to be about 3,000,000; using 5.0 gm/cm2 of aluminum shielding, the REM for one year continuous exposure would be reduced to about 550. (Note: REM = dose (RAD) x Relative Biological Effectiveness (RBE) of particular ionizing radiation.) A radiation dose value from a low energy flare is provided from NASA Mooned America, p. 134: "On page 256 of 'Astronautical Engineering' there is a chart that shows the dosage of four different flares. On August 22, 1958 there was a low energy flare that could have been reduced to 25-rem with 2-cm of water shielding."

So, being conservative and using 25 rems per flare, we have 25 rems x 15 flares/day = 375 rems / day for the Apollo astronauts.

For occupational exposure dose limits, the International Atomic Energy Agency states that the "occupational exposure of any worker shall be so controlled" that the limit of an "effective dose of 50 mSv" "in any single year" "be not exceeded". 50 mSv converts to 5 rems.

How were the Apollo astronauts able to withstand 375 rems per day when the IAEA occupational exposure dose limit is only 5 rems in any single year?
JimO wrote:

The above example demonstrates how the selective extraction of facts from the reference material lead to conclusions refuted by other facts presented in the same reference.

http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/R ... s2c3-2.jpg

http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm


Izzy wrote:

Quote:
you based your entire argument on an article written by none other than "Mr. Encyclopedia of Sex", "Sex in Space"....
http://www.bway.net/~rjnoonan/humans_in ... umans.html


JimO wrote:
The above article was cited as a reference by your source, originally. (dpwozney). I merely pointed out that other facts contained in the same reference directly refute wozney's conclusions. Are you saying that it's ok for Wozney to cite Noonan's article as a source, but if I cite the same reference, you have a problem with that?

Wozney wrote:
Quote:

So, being conservative and using 25 rems per flare, we have 25 rems x 15 flares/day = 375 rems / day for the Apollo astronauts.


The problem for me is wozney's calculation, above. He multiplies the average number of solar flares visible on the sun at any given time times the average unshielded rem value of each and every flare, as if all of the solar flares' (plural) particle ejections were simultaneously aimed at the earth/moon systems vicinity. I say this is an erroneous assumption on wozney's part. When solar flare particle energies impinge on the vicinity of the earth, typically this disrupts various kinds of radio and satellite communications systems, and happens at the most only once every few months for a few days at a time.

This means that astronauts on a mission of a few days duration are not likely to recieve any particulate radiation at all from any of the fifteen or so solar flares that are visible at any given time on the surface of the sun, because most of the time these flares are not aimed in our direction.

Whether or not Noonan, wozney's reference, is interested in and writes articles about unrelated subjects like sex is beside the point. The point is Wozney makes calculations based on erroneous assumptions and cites Noonan as a source for these assumptions, by selectively extracting some facts from Noonan's article and omitting others that are contrary to his conclusions.

Noonan makes a table of various radiation doses received in various locations in the world and during different space missions:

Table 1. Comparison of different types of human exposure to radiation and dosage.

TYPES OF EXPOSURES REM
------------------ ---
Transcontinental Round Trip by Jet 0.004
Chest X-Ray (Lung Dose) 0.010
Living One Year in Houston, TX 0.100
Living One Year in Denver, CO 0.200
Living One Year in Kerala, India 1.300
Highest Skin Dose, Apollo 14 1.140
(Mission to the Moon; 9 day mission)
Highest Skin Dose, Skylab 4 17.800
(Orbiting Earth at 272 miles, 87 day mission)
Highest Skin Dose, Shuttle Mission 41-C 0.559
(Orbiting Earth at 286 miles, 8 day mission)
Maximum Allowable in 1 Year to a Terrestrial Worker 5.000

The highlighted data for the Apollo 14 mission, above, agrees with data posted by NASA, below (but of course, you think NASA is lying, right?).

http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm
Last edited by TurboPlex on 06-13-2006 01:54 PM, edited 1 time in total.

palosheights
Pirate
Posts: 536
Joined: 11-19-2004 09:01 PM

Post by palosheights » 06-13-2006 09:51 PM

and this all boils down to?? should they have made it or not?

andy

TurboPlex
Guest
Posts: 15
Joined: 06-12-2006 12:03 AM

Post by TurboPlex » 06-14-2006 11:06 AM

and this all boils down to?? should they have made it or not?


It boils down to a simple fact. Neither the Van Allen radiation belts or possible Solar Flare activity taking place on the sun at the time would have subjected the Apollo astronauts to more radiation than one or two chest x-rays.

The thing I find rather odd about this whole thread is that we are assured in the title by Mr. Lear that there is some big "lie" that NASA told us somewhere. After 45 pages back and forth all he comes up with is the rather absurd idea that NASA is lying about the moon not having an atmosphere. I can assure you that there is no atmosphere of any consequence on the moon. We knew this way before NASA was ever even organized. I can back up this statement with scientific fact. You can even check this out for yourself if you have a telescope, the next time the moon eclpises another celestial object.

If "John Lear" is actually who he says he is, then the implication is, I guess, that he is privy to some "secret" information that the rest of are not, due to the fact that he has some connection with the government. Isn't this correct?

Could this be why no-one here seems to be willing to stand up and give him an argument, or any back talk whatsoever??

Well let me be the first!

Mr Lear, your conclusion about the moon having an atmosphere is just hogwash.

Jim Ostrowski

(yes, it's actually me, the REAL Jim Ostrowski)
:p
Last edited by TurboPlex on 06-14-2006 12:28 PM, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Jon-Marcus
Pirate
Posts: 1409
Joined: 01-08-2005 09:10 AM
Location: Bonham, Texas

Post by Jon-Marcus » 06-14-2006 11:13 AM

TurboPlex wrote: It boils down to a simple fact. Neither the Van Allen radiation belts or possible Solar Flare activity taking place on the sun at the time would have subjected the Apollo astronauts to more radiation than one or two chest x-rays.

The thing I find rather odd about this whole thread is that we are assured in the title by Mr. Lear that there is some big "lie" that NASA told us somewhere. After 45 pages back and forth all he comes up with is the rather absurd idea that NASA is lying about the moon not having an atmosphere. I can assure you that there is no atmosphere of any consequence on the moon. We knew this way before NASA was ever even organized. I can back up this statement with scientific fact. You can even check this out for yourself if you have a telescope, the next time the moon eclpises another celestial object.

If "John Lear" is actually who he says he is, then the implication is, I guess, that he is privy to some "secret" information that the rest of are not, due to the fact that he has some connection with the government. Isn't this correct?

Could this be why no-one here seems to be willing to stand up and give him an argument, or any back talk whatsoever??

Well let me be the first!

Mr Lear, your conclusion about the moon having an atmosphere is just hogwash.

Jim Ostrowski

(yes, it's actually me, the REAL Jim Ostrowski)
:p


Hi, Jim.

I stood up on a different thread. I offered a different possibility. All it got me was being called " ignorant" and ignored. In the Apolo thread.
I get annoyed enough on other threads without subjecting myself to more here.
"You have forgotten the face of your father." Roland Deschain

TurboPlex
Guest
Posts: 15
Joined: 06-12-2006 12:03 AM

Post by TurboPlex » 06-14-2006 11:38 AM

I stood up on a different thread. I offered a different possibility. All it got me was being called " ignorant" and ignored. In the Apolo thread.
Hi Jon!

I would be happy to read your stuff! I'm new here and not familiar with where the Apollo thread might be. If you go there and copy the location URL that appears in your browser address window, then paste that into your next message I will click on it and read what went on there!

Thank you for replying!

JimO
Last edited by TurboPlex on 06-14-2006 12:29 PM, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Return to “John Lear Archive”