I just heard John Lear on CTC giving the following nonsensical claims:
(a) NASA has current mining ops. on moon. Basis for claim: a supposed 16X20 negative he got from NASA which is a raw photo from Lunar Orbiter 2. He sees obvious cranes, buildings, and a space port.
(b) "We" are currently working with aliens at this spaceport and this is being covered up by NASA
(c) NASA "air brushes" all moon /Mars photos to hide evidence of civilization.
(d) Apollo was a "cover" program and really we went to moon in 1962 and future years.
(e) the population of Mars is 600 million (aliens? humans?) and he thinks this because of a late "government insider"
(f) large mining equipment for this mission was built in Alabama but has now been moved to Antarctica to cover program with secrecy
(g) moon has a breathable atmosphere (did he really say this, it sounds SO ludicrous?)
(h) there was a 4th man who perished with White/Grissum/Chaffee in 1967 in Apollo 1 fire, but this man was part of the "secret astronaut" core and his identity had to be covered up
(i) antigravity propulsion to moon gets craft from south pole to moon in 1 hour (I'm not kidding, I think he really said that)

question 1 : BAUT people please debunk this point -by -point
question 2: what is different between this guy and Hoagland? they seem to be saying similar things.

__________________
"fifty is nifty" , unknown poet

Does that need debunking? Can you fight pure fantasy with facts anyway?

But...why would (a) occur if (c) is true? They take time and effort to airbrush away evidence, but then give a non-altered negative to someone known for his hoax claims? That's like the military encrypting all their data on nuclear weapons, then handing the origonal non-coded documents to North Korea...

(g) is just simple physics. no need for debunking, just need to use your brain a bit.

(i) if a craft travels that fast, what's keeping the passengers from being curshed to pulp from the acceleration and subsequent decceleration? Regardless of gravity, a moving obejct pushing an inert object (ie passenger) will create force upon the inert object.

__________________
I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.

Theory of Zombie Relativity:
1) Everyone Else is a Zombie relative to You
2) Whether or not it matters is related to the inverse square of the distance between their teeth and your brain
(Quoted from Demigrog)

Keeping in mind I think all of this could be used to help grow vegetables...if a craft were using anti-gravity, I should think the passengers would feel no effects of acceleration at all.

That would be way cool...and way beyond our technological capabilities, if it is even possible in theory.

The only way the passengers would not feel the acceleration would be if the drive mechanic was also accelerating you, as in your physical being. Otherwise, vehicles work by pushing those things inside them.

When I set on the gas pedal in my car, I am not speeding up my body. I am speeding up the car, part of which is the seat, which pushes me until my speed matches that of the car. If the car suddenly stops, I do not suddenly stop until I make contact with hopefully the seatbelt, otherwise the front of the passenger compartment.

__________________
I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.

Theory of Zombie Relativity:
1) Everyone Else is a Zombie relative to You
2) Whether or not it matters is related to the inverse square of the distance between their teeth and your brain
(Quoted from Demigrog)

Right. But if a (mythical) space drive were able to counteract gravity, then everything inside the craft should be independent of those gravitational effects.

That's the reason people falling out of their chairs on Star Trek was so silly. They clearly had artificial gravity...so why are people falling out of their chairs when the ship got hit/zapped? Unless the AG failed...in which case, they should be floating.

Silly Fazor. If they can overcome gravity, how hard would it be to overcome inertia?

__________________
"That's Not Blight. It's New Jersey" - The Wall Street Journal

Right. But if a (mythical) space drive were able to counteract gravity, then everything inside the craft should be independent of those gravitational effects. Inertia is not a gravitational effect.

Though Extravoice has a point.

__________________
I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.

Theory of Zombie Relativity:
1) Everyone Else is a Zombie relative to You
2) Whether or not it matters is related to the inverse square of the distance between their teeth and your brain
(Quoted from Demigrog)

But if gravity is being artificially generated, what would be the source of inertia? Essentially, relative to anything else, within its own gravity bubble (a term I just invented) the craft would be motionless.

I'd prefer Steppenwolf on the CD, if you please.

Ah, I see. So your gravity drive just makes the vehicle it's own reference...bubble (whatever that would be called), so that the whole area of effect would be independant of everything else. Interesting.

...oh, and sorry. It has to be Beach Boys. Prefferably with "I get around" set on a loop. If you've ever seen the Navigator, you'll know why.

__________________
I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.

Theory of Zombie Relativity:
1) Everyone Else is a Zombie relative to You
2) Whether or not it matters is related to the inverse square of the distance between their teeth and your brain
(Quoted from Demigrog)

No point-by-point debunking is really possible because it's a mostly a load of completely fanciful claims with no evidence given to support them. You can't rebut or refute something for which no argument or evidence is given.

Last question first, I consider John Lear different from Richard Hoagland only because Lear once did something very worthwhile with his life before becoming a professional crackpot.

(a) NASA has current mining ops. on moon. Basis for claim: a supposed 16X20 negative he got from NASA which is a raw photo from Lunar Orbiter 2. He sees obvious cranes, buildings, and a space port.

Lunar Orbiter 2 did not produce "negatives" that Lear could hold in his hand. The photographs were transmitted back to Earth in digital form. The size of whatever hardcopy he has is irrelevant, because the source data had, at best, 1 meter-per-pixel resolution (often much coarser).

If he sees features that are "obviously" mining equipment, then he should be able to show a strong correlation to specific examples of other mining equipment. That is, he should be able to point to feature on his photograph and point to something made by, say, Marion or Bucyrus Erie, and show that they very strongly resemble each other. That's my notion of "obvious" identification.

If instead, "obvious buildings," mean simply something that is apparent to John Lear and not objectively comparable to something else of known identification, then that is simply his interpretation and not "obvious" at all. In that case he's on the hook to defend his interpretation of those features as cranes, buildings, and spaceports instead of transmission defects, ordinary lunar features, and compression/encoding artifacts.

(b) "We" are currently working with aliens at this spaceport and this is being covered up by NASA

Presumes the existence of the spaceport and the existence of aliens. Lear's only evidence for the existence of a lunar installation is his interpretation of an old photograph. I'm not aware of any evidence for the existence of aliens. The "cover-up" claim is simply an ancillary subclaim given as an excuse for why the evidence overwhelmingly shows the opposite of what Lear is saying. He has to have some way of dismissing the counterevidence.

(c) NASA "air brushes" all moon /Mars photos to hide evidence of civilization.

Why is Mars relevant? How would he know NASA is altering photographs unless he had the unaltered versions of the photographs against which to compare them? More likely he is looking at the published photographs and trying to explain "anomalies" as artifacts of some speculated doctoring procedure, insinuating that if the photos "must" be doctored then there is something in them that must be hidden -- coincidentally exactly what Lear is speculating is actually there.

Photographs are available of the lunar surface from sources outside NASA's control. NASA can only doctor what NASA can control. Those photos fail to show signs of the civilization Lear claims is there. Except, of course, for the one "negative" that Lear conveniently offers as "obvious" proof.

(d) Apollo was a "cover" program and really we went to moon in 1962 and future years.

I know of no evidence of any manned lunar program other than Apollo. Lear doesn't seem to present any that I've been informed of. This is simply a claim given with no evidence.

(e) the population of Mars is 600 million (aliens? humans?)...

A planetoid harboring a population one-tenth that of Earth in humanoid form would require observable infrastructure easily visible from Earth through amateur telescopes. No evidence of such extensive population is available.

...and he thinks this because of a late "government insider"

The second-hand acount of the testimony of a dead man who may or may not have been who he said he was is not at all evidence of anything.

(f) large mining equipment for this mission was built in Alabama but has now been moved to Antarctica to cover program with secrecy

Where in Alabama? By whom? By what company? What evidence arose in Alabama that supports this claim?

What installations now in Antarctica support such a heavy industry? Where are the shipments of materials to Antarctica, and the shipments of finished products away from it? How is generated the massive amount of electrical energy typically required by such heavy industry? Who lives and works in Antarctica to support this operation?

Implausible claims given with no evidence.

(g) moon has a breathable atmosphere (did he really say this, it sounds SO ludicrous?)

If the Moon had a breathable atmosphere (e.g., appropriate partial pressure of oxygen with an appropriate partial pressure of inert diluents) then it would also have observable weather, erosion, and sunlight-transmission characteristics. None of this is observed. Further, the Moon's gravity is not sufficient to retain an Earth-like atmosphere. That's why it doesn't have one naturally.

(h) there was a 4th man who perished with White/Grissum/Chaffee in 1967 in Apollo 1 fire, but this man was part of the "secret astronaut" core and his identity had to be covered up

I know of no American astronauts chosen and trained besides those who are so named by NASA and the relevant industries. Further if Apollo was merely a cover program, why would NASA be so foolish as to taint the cover program with the actual secret program? The Apollo 1 spacecraft was opened and inspected on the pad by numerous people who witnessed the crew remains in situ.

Rumors of a fourth astronaut may derive from NASA manager Jack Shea's aborted offer to sit in Apollo 1's lower equipment bay during the fateful plugs-out test and help smooth out the rough test procedure. Had Shea been able to do that, there would likely indeed have been a fourth victim.

(i) antigravity propulsion to moon gets craft from south pole to moon in 1 hour (I'm not kidding, I think he really said that)

Evidence of a launch site in Antarctica? How are large shipments departing Earth's vicinity hidden from telescopic view? Or from the naked eye?

Any evidence for "anti-gravity" drive in general? Or is this Lear simply postulating the magic machine he needs for all his claims to be true.

In terms of the evidence, there simply isn't any. The best conclusion according to the evidence is not that all this is really true and that extraordinary means have been engaged to make everything seem normal. The best conclusion according to the evidence is that Lear is making all this up.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I did...but I also heard "Magic Carpert Ride" when Zefram Cochran took off in First Contact!

Still, I was even born in Hawthorne, CA...so why not Beach Boys (official geek hat to anyone who gets that reference)?

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/lu...ter/mission/?2

Lunar Orbiter 2 mission photography at NSSDC.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Thanks Jay for the thoughtful feedback. We can dispense of Lear as easily as Hoagland.

These people are probably just feeding off a gullible populace and CTC broadcasts this tripe to tens of millions.

__________________
"fifty is nifty" , unknown poet

I doubt it's that many. Heck, even I've never actually listened to that show.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Originally Posted by Fazor
Right. But if a (mythical) space drive were able to counteract gravity, then everything inside the craft should be independent of those gravitational effects. Inertia is not a gravitational effect.

Though Extravoice has a point.


Interesting point Daffy, but I doubt whether this is so easy. Fazor is right, one has to distinguish gravity and inertia. Gravity is dependant only on the masses involved attracting each other (and the gravitational constant) whereas inertia is dependant on the acceleration a single mass is subjected to.
It's a bit like a Koan: no one there to observe but nonetheless inertia would be there.

To explain my own thinking: if the Universe would have only one single mass (pointwise) this mass would not experience gravity as there is no other mass attracting it. However, when you accelerate this single mass, it would experience inertia; i.e. resistance to change its current state of motion. Weird, isn't it? Even if motion with only one point of mass and therefore only one physical reference point seems to be a moot concept.

Extracelestial

Fazor: You're right as well but you have to take into account that a mass with its very own reference (neither experiencing attraction nor resistance to state change) might be as well not within our Universe. So a Anti-gravity bubble might turn out to be not an interstellar drive but an inter-Universe drive!

I might be wrong on this. Does anybody see a flaw in my reasoning?

Extracelestial

__________________
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic - Arthur C. Clarke

Well, that's what I was picturing when I was thinking about how to make Daffy's drive possible...it would basically mean you exist somewhere on your own plane...or dimension. So if you can get that fanciful, then why not say you could re-enter any dimension you want?

But to tie that back in with the OP, in order for the "less than an hour moon trip" claims to be real, you'd need technology that is so far out there, it would not be merely "new technology", but instead something that comlpletely shatters our current notions of time, dimensions, and the universe. Fairly bold claims...that we're apparently expected to believe sans evidence.

__________________
I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.

Theory of Zombie Relativity:
1) Everyone Else is a Zombie relative to You
2) Whether or not it matters is related to the inverse square of the distance between their teeth and your brain
(Quoted from Demigrog)

I know of no American astronauts chosen and trained besides those who are so named by NASA and the relevant industries. Further if Apollo was merely a cover program, why would NASA be so foolish as to taint the cover program with the actual secret program? The Apollo 1 spacecraft was opened and inspected on the pad by numerous people who witnessed the crew remains in situ.

Not that Lear is correct about anything, but there was a group of mostly military astronauts chosed for the DynaSoar program. According to the linked article, one of them was Neil Armstrong. There were also 14 military astronauts trained for the Manned Orbiting Laboratory project. According to the linked article, NASA offered jobs to those that were under age 35 and 7 accepted.

If John Lear is the son of the late great Bill Lear, then it's really sad to see the son of such an interesting and accomplished man become such a fruitcake. I met Bill Lear's widow at Oshkosh 1996. She was a gracious lady in every sense of the word.

Short version: John Lear postulates an extensive alternate reality that bears little if any resemblance to the observed universe.

_____