Archive for johnlearsmoon.myfastforum.org a forum for parties interested in john lears upcoming book the living moon and the conspiracies surrounding a populated solar system
 



       johnlearsmoon.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> Questions for John Lear
Lux

Q for John about Apollo

John, do you believe it's possible that at least some of the Apollo astronauts'
memories of their moon experiences were completely false from beginning to
end?

That is, it wasn't just part of their memories that were altered, but the
entire experience was implanted via mind control techniques as we know
is done with 'clear eyes' type operatives.

So that in reality they really never did set foot on the moon?

I'm not suggesting this was done with all of them necessarily. I've seen
what you've posted about certain hints being given by certain
astronauts so this may not apply to them.

I'm just wondering if you feel it may have been done with some of them.
johnlear

Re: Q for John about Apollo

Lux wrote:
John, do you believe it's possible that at least some of the Apollo astronauts'
memories of their moon experiences were completely false from beginning to
end?

That is, it wasn't just part of their memories that were altered, but the
entire experience was implanted via mind control techniques as we know
is done with 'clear eyes' type operatives.

So that in reality they really never did set foot on the moon?

I'm not suggesting this was done with all of them necessarily. I've seen
what you've posted about certain hints being given by certain
astronauts so this may not apply to them.

I'm just wondering if you feel it may have been done with some of them.


None of the Apollo astronauts went to the moon or landed on the moon. None. It was all a hoax.

All of their memories were false memories.

No whether it was because we didn't have the technical expertise or some other reason I don't know for sure. Certainly the Lunar Lander with a rocket engine could not have happened. If they landed which I don't think they did, they did not use a rocket engine.

The entire Apollo moon landings of Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 and the emergencyy of 13 were all staged and were all illusions. A very expensive magic trick...just like 911.
Lux

Re: Q for John about Apollo

johnlear wrote:


None of the Apollo astronauts went to the moon or landed on the moon. None. It was all a hoax.

All of their memories were false memories.

No whether it was because we didn't have the technical expertise or some other reason I don't know for sure. Certainly the Lunar Lander with a rocket engine could not have happened. If they landed which I don't think they did, they did not use a rocket engine.

The entire Apollo moon landings of Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 and the emergencyy of 13 were all staged and were all illusions. A very expensive magic trick...just like 911.


OK, that is what I had previously thought.

Somehow I got the idea you thought they did go to the moon but the
fake photography was only to hide the secret aspects of the moon
(atmosphere, etc).

Thanks for clarifying.
johnlear

Re: Q for John about Apollo

Lux wrote:



Somehow I got the idea you thought they did go to the moon but the
fake photography was only to hide the secret aspects of the moon
(atmosphere, etc).

Thanks for clarifying.



You are correct. Up until a few weeks ago that is what I believed. I am no longer an 'Apollo hugger'. I am now a "No mooner".
SpaceCommand

In my thoughts why could they not have gone to the moon with outside assistance or even inside assistance? Yes Apollo well could have been an "inside job!" Rolling Eyes

With all those back engineered UFOs at S-4 and so forth, and even a secret Astronaut program, the hypnosis could well have been to cover up more details about this essentially propagandized mission.

It has been an intuitive feeling for me, and surely many others that there were two Apollo programs expressing redundancy within the mission, and one consisted of fake photographs, and the other of any genuine photographs. Are all the photographs fake, or are there some that reflect the actuality of an assisted mission?

Whether the gravitation factor rendered the perceived mission as impossible or not, an assisted Apollo via the secret space program or even through space aliens is an intriguing speculation. What is the take on all this?
Lux

Re: Q for John about Apollo

johnlear wrote:
Lux wrote:



Somehow I got the idea you thought they did go to the moon but the
fake photography was only to hide the secret aspects of the moon
(atmosphere, etc).

Thanks for clarifying.



You are correct. Up until a few weeks ago that is what I believed. I am no longer an 'Apollo hugger'. I am now a "No mooner".


OK, now I have to ask: Did something happen a few weeks ago that changed your mind?

Or, was this just a re-evaluation of the info you already had?
johnlear

Re: Q for John about Apollo

Lux wrote:
johnlear wrote:
Lux wrote:



Somehow I got the idea you thought they did go to the moon but the
fake photography was only to hide the secret aspects of the moon
(atmosphere, etc).

Thanks for clarifying.



You are correct. Up until a few weeks ago that is what I believed. I am no longer an 'Apollo hugger'. I am now a "No mooner".


OK, now I have to ask: Did something happen a few weeks ago that changed your mind?

Or, was this just a re-evaluation of the info you already had?



About 3 or 4 weeks ago Zorgon emailed me the videos of the Apollo 14, 15 nd 17 landings and asked me to take a careful look. I immediatley recognized them as fakes not only by the moon plaster of paris model but by the audio dialogue which was unbelievably fake.

I started looking around for any evidence that was absolutely iron clad that any Apollo mission had actually landed on the moon. I could find none.

Then somebody posted the video of the Apollo mission crew steping out of the helicopter that picked them up 63 minutes earlier after 8.14 days of weightlessness. I watched as they bounced down the stairs and walked across the deck to the mobile quarantine container I got a sick feeling in my stomach. This could not have been 3 guys who just spent 8 days, weightless in space. We have all been hoaxed.

Now everything else fits in including the murder of Grissom, White and Chaffee. Grisson knew for sure what was going on when he said, just before he was murdered, and referring to ther Apollo capsule, "This thing ain't going to fly in 2 years, this thing ain't going to fly in ten years!"
Lux

SpaceCommand wrote:

Are all the photographs fake, or are there some that reflect the actuality of an assisted mission?


Having professional photographic and film production experience, my take is
this:

1. At least some of the Apollo still photos appear staged or, at the very least,
taken with the help of equipment they supposedly didn't have per NASA.
My eye tells me these questionable stills were shot either in a studio or on
a prepared exterior location set (i.e., on Earth).  The main giveaway being
lighting issues (and I'm not talking about "no stars visible in the sky").
So, unless the Apollo missions brought along a well equipped lighting/grip
crew, those images were shot on a professional set, most likely an interior
stage.

2. The motion picture footage shows even more issues than the stills.
These are well documented on YouTube. etc.  For me, the most telling
are the sped up (by 2X) videos of the astronauts walking, running,
jumping and driving around.  When sped up by 2X they appear EXACTLY
as they would if they were doing the same actions on Earth.  They simply
and obviously shot at 2X speed and slowed it down to simulate a low grav
environment. And, there are other issues shown in these videos such as
wind being present, apparent "wire work" and others.  And, of course, the
famous "One small step" outtake video which looks perfectly real to me
and would be extremely difficult/expensive to fake.  

3. The debunking efforts on the faked image issues have all the usual
cover-up earmarks we have all become so familiar with ad nauseum.

4. So, if at least some of the still and motion photography is faked, it
brings me to the conclusion that ALL must be faked because it would
seem illogical to conclude otherwise. Trying to match faked studio images
with real lunar images would just be too difficult to pull off successfully.
It would be like in the old Tarzan movies where they cut away from the
studio shots to the stock footage wildlife shots of alligators diving
into the river, etc.  It would be a joke and even Stanley Kubric couldn't
pull that off.
Lux

Re: Q for John about Apollo

johnlear wrote:
Lux wrote:
johnlear wrote:
Lux wrote:



Somehow I got the idea you thought they did go to the moon but the
fake photography was only to hide the secret aspects of the moon
(atmosphere, etc).

Thanks for clarifying.



You are correct. Up until a few weeks ago that is what I believed. I am no longer an 'Apollo hugger'. I am now a "No mooner".


OK, now I have to ask: Did something happen a few weeks ago that changed your mind?

Or, was this just a re-evaluation of the info you already had?



About 3 or 4 weeks ago Zorgon emailed me the videos of the Apollo 14, 15 nd 17 landings and asked me to take a careful look. I immediatley recognized them as fakes not only by the moon plaster of paris model but by the audio dialogue which was unbelievably fake.

I started looking around for any evidence that was absolutely iron clad that any Apollo mission had actually landed on the moon. I could find none.

Then somebody posted the video of the Apollo mission crew steping out of the helicopter that picked them up 63 minutes earlier after 8.14 days of weightlessness. I watched as they bounced down the stairs and walked across the deck to the mobile quarantine container I got a sick feeling in my stomach. This could not have been 3 guys who just spent 8 days, weightless in space. We have all been hoaxed.

Now everything else fits in including the murder of Grissom, White and Chaffee. Grisson knew for sure what was going on when he said, just before he was murdered, and referring to ther Apollo capsule, "This thing ain't going to fly in 2 years, this thing ain't going to fly in ten years!"


Thank you , John!

For me, this is the most valuable data.  Somebody who's been there
and done that says it can't be.  They know it's fake instantly on sight
while all the armchair debaters argue endlessly about details which they
know not and never will.
johnlear

Lux wrote:
SpaceCommand wrote:

Are all the photographs fake, or are there some that reflect the actuality of an assisted mission?


Having professional photographic and film production experience, my take is
this:

1. At least some of the Apollo still photos appear staged or, at the very least,
taken with the help of equipment they supposedly didn't have per NASA.
My eye tells me these questionable stills were shot either in a studio or on
a prepared exterior location set (i.e., on Earth).  The main giveaway being
lighting issues (and I'm not talking about "no stars visible in the sky").
So, unless the Apollo missions brought along a well equipped lighting/grip
crew, those images were shot on a professional set, most likely an interior
stage.

2. The motion picture footage shows even more issues than the stills.
These are well documented on YouTube. etc.  For me, the most telling
are the sped up (by 2X) videos of the astronauts walking, running,
jumping and driving around.  When sped up by 2X they appear EXACTLY
as they would if they were doing the same actions on Earth.  They simply
and obviously shot at 2X speed and slowed it down to simulate a low grav
environment. And, there are other issues shown in these videos such as
wind being present, apparent "wire work" and others.  And, of course, the
famous "One small step" outtake video which looks perfectly real to me
and would be extremely difficult/expensive to fake.  

3. The debunking efforts on the faked image issues have all the usual
cover-up earmarks we have all become so familiar with ad nauseum.

4. So, if at least some of the still and motion photography is faked, it
brings me to the conclusion that ALL must be faked because it would
seem illogical to conclude otherwise. Trying to match faked studio images
with real lunar images would just be too difficult to pull off successfully.
It would be like in the old Tarzan movies where they cut away from the
studio shots to the stock footage wildlife shots of alligators diving
into the river, etc.  It would be a joke and even Stanley Kubric couldn't
pull that off.



I agree with you Lux. Sometime this week or next Zorgon is going to attempt to overlay the 2 separate videos of the "One small step for man."

I have always wondered if Neil Armstrong choose those words on purpose. As you know it was brought to his attention after he claimed he said "one small step for a man."

I have always wondered if he really meant to say "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." The implication being, of course that, yeah we faked it but look what it did for humanity. Look what it did for their self esteem.
Lux

johnlear wrote:

I agree with you Lux. Sometime this week or next Zorgon is going to attempt to overlay the 2 separate videos of the "One small step for man."


I like that idea!

Quote:

I have always wondered if Neil Armstrong choose those words on purpose. As you know it was brought to his attention after he claimed he said "one small step for a man."

I have always wondered if he really meant to say "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." The implication being, of course that, yeah we faked it but look what it did for humanity. Look what it did for their self esteem.


That's an interesting idea.  He surely would have given those words a lot
of thought beforehand, knowing the significance that would be given them
by the public.

Or, maybe the words were chosen for him and he purposely altered them
a little.  Wink
AV8R

Re: Q for John about Apollo

johnlear wrote:


I watched as they bounced down the stairs and walked across the deck to the mobile quarantine container I got a sick feeling in my stomach. This could not have been 3 guys who just spent 8 days, weightless in space. We have all been hoaxed.


Sir,
Are you basing your claim that we did not go to the moon on the fact that three guys were able to walk to a MQF after being in space?

What about the astronauts that walk off the shuttle after coming back from two week missions?  Are you going to tell us now that that shuttle is unmanned and that the crew getting off is a trick for the cameras?
johnlear

Re: Q for John about Apollo

AV8R wrote:
johnlear wrote:


I watched as they bounced down the stairs and walked across the deck to the mobile quarantine container I got a sick feeling in my stomach. This could not have been 3 guys who just spent 8 days, weightless in space. We have all been hoaxed.


Sir,
Are you basing your claim that we did not go to the moon on the fact that three guys were able to walk to a MQF after being in space?

What about the astronauts that walk off the shuttle after coming back from two week missions?  Are you going to tell us now that that shuttle is unmanned and that the crew getting off is a trick for the cameras?



No. I am basing my claim that no Apollo mission went to the Moon on the fact that the Moon has at least 64% the gravity of Earth and that with 22,000 pounds of fuel it would be impossible, with the rocket engine aboard the lunar lander to have descended from orbit, landed, then climbed back into orbit with that amount of fuel.

I further base my claim that no Apollo mission ever landed on the Moon by the videos of Apollo 15 and 17 which show an alleged landing and touchdown on the Moon using the plaster of paris model at Langley. I also believe the audio with these fake landings were scripted and being read.

I further base my claim that no Apollo mission ever landed on the Moon on the fictitious photos of the alleged astronauts on the Moon that show impossible lighting effects and camera position.

I further base my claim that no Apollo Mission ever landed on the moon by the absense of any dust on the landing pads of the lunar lander and the absense of any indication of the rocket blast on landing. While NASA's response is that they were throttled back to 10% we are still talking about several thousand pounds of thrust which would have not only made a depression but would have thrown dust for thousands of feet and in the alleged absence of substantial gravity would have still been visible hours later.

I further base my claim that no Apollo mission ever landed on the Moon on statements both by Buzz Aldrin and Dr. Edgar Mitchell both of who state that they cannot remember what its like to be on the Moon.

As far as the Shuttle crew they don't spend 8 days on their back. Smile
Lux

BTW, I think this video clip from an Apollo 11 press conference shortly
after the mission clearly shows us their attitude concerning the historic
event they had just participated in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RcKLAo62Ro
AV8R

Re: Q for John about Apollo

johnlear wrote:

No. I am basing my claim that no Apollo mission went to the Moon on the fact that the Moon has at least 64% the gravity of Earth and that with 22,000 pounds of fuel it would be impossible, with the rocket engine aboard the lunar lander to have descended from orbit, landed, then climbed back into orbit with that amount of fuel.

Sir,
Those engines constantly burn fuel as they are used, so the acutal weight of the lander was less than you claim.

Quote:

I further base my claim that no Apollo mission ever landed on the Moon on the fictitious photos of the alleged astronauts on the Moon that show impossible lighting effects and camera position.

I was not aware of any impossible lighting effects on the moon, can you give some details?

Quote:

I further base my claim that no Apollo Mission ever landed on the moon by the absense of any dust on the landing pads of the lunar lander and the absense of any indication of the rocket blast on landing. While NASA's response is that they were throttled back to 10% we are still talking about several thousand pounds of thrust which would have not only made a depression but would have thrown dust for thousands of feet and in the alleged absence of substantial gravity would have still been visible hours later.

There are plenty of pictures that show dust on the landers, these pictures also show the obvious blast damage to the surface.  

Quote:

I further base my claim that no Apollo mission ever landed on the Moon on statements both by Buzz Aldrin and Dr. Edgar Mitchell both of who state that they cannot remember what its like to be on the Moon.

I don't recall Buzz mentioning that during the "In the Shadow of the Moon" DVD.

Quote:

As far as the Shuttle crew they don't spend 8 days on their back. Smile

I am confused as to what that has to do with whether or not folks could walk after eight days in microgravity or a weighless state.
Lux

Here's a funny video.  It supposedly shows Apollo 17 blasting off from
the surface of the moon.  As it rises it appears to be pulled (as by a wire)
rather than pushed by a rocket engine.

But, for me, the funniest part is the voice of the astronaut as the craft
supposedly blasts upwards.  He says, "We're on our way, Houston!"
without the slightest hint of stress or vibration in his voice, just as if
he read it from a script.  How could anyone sound so nonchalant as
they are suddenly blasted upwards by a rocket?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOdzhQS_MMw
Lux

Re: Q for John about Apollo

I know you didn't ask me but I felt compelled to answer ...

AV8R wrote:

Sir,
Those engines constantly burn fuel as they are used, so the acutal weight of the lander was less than you claim.


I'll take a wild guess here and say that John is probably aware of
fuel/weight issues.

Do you even know who John Lear is? At lease have the courtesy to find
out before insulting him with questions like this.  If you DO know then
your question is even stupider than I thought.

Quote:

I was not aware of any impossible lighting effects on the moon, can you give some details?


I, for one, believe that you ARE unaware of such and I also believe you
would continue to be unaware even if it were explained to you.

If you really want to know, go to school and study photography and then
work in a studio for a few years and then you might see what's being
discussed here.

I actually don't mean that as a smartass answer.  Someone who is
experienced in a certain activity can see things that others miss and no
amount of explaining will give them that perception.  Example: A piano
player knows when an actor is faking playing a piano. He can see it
instantly but explaining it to a non-payer is futile because they will
never have the piano player's perception which is based on experience,
not information.

Quote:

There are plenty of pictures that show dust on the landers, these pictures also show the obvious blast damage to the surface.  


The no-dust issue is well covered on a number of sites.  Read about it.

Quote:

I don't recall Buzz mentioning that during the "In the Shadow of the Moon" DVD.


You don't say. I don't recall President Bush mentioning that 9/11 was an
engineered  fraud to usher in the age of endless war and the rise of global
fascist government.  Must have slipped his mind.

Quote:

I am confused as to what that has to do with whether or not folks could walk after eight days in microgravity or a weighless state.


I believe you are confused.  What is your question?
MOTOVTRE

Lux wrote:
Here's a funny video.  It supposedly shows Apollo 17 blasting off from
the surface of the moon.  As it rises it appears to be pulled (as by a wire)
rather than pushed by a rocket engine.

But, for me, the funniest part is the voice of the astronaut as the craft
supposedly blasts upwards.  He says, "We're on our way, Houston!"
without the slightest hint of stress or vibration in his voice, just as if
he read it from a script.  How could anyone sound so nonchalant as
they are suddenly blasted upwards by a rocket?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOdzhQS_MMw


hi
maby its a stupid question but, whos filming the blast off?
AV8R

Re: Q for John about Apollo

Lux wrote:
I know you didn't ask me but I felt compelled to answer ...

Next time ignore that compulsion.

Quote:

I'll take a wild guess here and say that John is probably aware of
fuel/weight issues.

Then why didn't he mention it?  He only mentioned the static weight of the lander (which is only static when the engines and equipment are shut off).

Quote:

Do you even know who John Lear is? At lease have the courtesy to find
out before insulting him with questions like this.  If you DO know then
your question is even stupider than I thought.

I know all about Mr Lear, I was a big fan of most of his topics at ATS.

Quote:

I, for one, believe that you ARE unaware of such and I also believe you
would continue to be unaware even if it were explained to you.

If you really want to know, go to school and study photography and then
work in a studio for a few years and then you might see what's being
discussed here.

I actually don't mean that as a smartass answer.  Someone who is
experienced in a certain activity can see things that others miss and no
amount of explaining will give them that perception.  Example: A piano
player knows when an actor is faking playing a piano. He can see it
instantly but explaining it to a non-payer is futile because they will
never have the piano player's perception which is based on experience,
not information.

So, did you go to some years of photography in order to come up with that answer?

Quote:

The no-dust issue is well covered on a number of sites.  Read about it.

I did, and none of them have convinced me that any of that is true.  Perhaps you can convince me with your depth of knowledge on the subject?

Quote:

You don't say. I don't recall President Bush mentioning that 9/11 was an
engineered  fraud to usher in the age of endless war and the rise of global
fascist government.  Must have slipped his mind.

Way to stick to the topic.

Quote:
Quote:

I am confused as to what that has to do with whether or not folks could walk after eight days in microgravity or a weighless state.


I believe you are confused.  What is your question?


Mr Lear claimed that the astronauts should not have been able to walk around unassisted:
Quote:
I watched as they bounced down the stairs and walked across the deck to the mobile quarantine container I got a sick feeling in my stomach. This could not have been 3 guys who just spent 8 days, weightless in space. We have all been hoaxed.


How can he (or you) explain how astronauts have been able to return from subsequent missions in space, that have lasted longer, without any problems walking unassited?  That is what I am confused about.
AV8R

MOTOVTRE wrote:

hi
maby its a stupid question but, whos filming the blast off?


It's not a stupid question.  The footage came from the Rover, which had a remote control camera that was operated from Houston.
Lux

Re: Q for John about Apollo

AV8R wrote:

Next time ignore that compulsion.


No.

Quote:
Then why didn't he mention it?  He only mentioned the static weight of the lander (which is only static when the engines and equipment are shut off).


I can't tell you why John Lear does or doesn't do anything.

Quote:
I know all about Mr Lear, I was a big fan of most of his topics at ATS.


Then your question is even stupider than I thought.

Quote:
So, did you go to some years of photography in order to come up with that answer?


Yes.

Quote:
I did, and none of them have convinced me that any of that is true.  Perhaps you can convince me with your depth of knowledge on the subject?


In my view people who "ask to be convinced" are idiots and trolls. I can't
think of any reason why I should concern myself with your beliefs.  Make
up your own mind (if you have one that you are in control of).

Quote:

Way to stick to the topic.


You missed the joke.  A frequent occurrence, I'd bet.

Quote:


Mr Lear claimed that the astronauts should not have been able to walk around unassisted:
Quote:
I watched as they bounced down the stairs and walked across the deck to the mobile quarantine container I got a sick feeling in my stomach. This could not have been 3 guys who just spent 8 days, weightless in space. We have all been hoaxed.


How can he (or you) explain how astronauts have been able to return from subsequent missions in space, that have lasted longer, without any problems walking unassited?  That is what I am confused about.


Seems like a good question. Beats me.  Ask him.
Vril1

Hello J.L and others. Smile
In respect to your thoughts about what really happened on the Apollo mission, I must say I have had the exatly same feelings. Because several strange things happened.
The film taken aboard Apollo 11 showing them orbiting the Earth in a distance to several 100km in a time they were supposing to orbit the moon.
The fact that they cannot remember some specific events, and did have some strange mind troubles and light flash experiences!
And all the manipulated pictures from Apollo 11-12-14-15-16-17.!
A possibility as I see it could be that they had two energi-systems! One for the lifting from earth (ordinaire)  and one for the journey to moon and back to earth-orbit (secret).
In fact both the film-stunt from Apollo 11 and the remembering trouble they had could explain such an event.
Remember reading about mind trouble to people experiencing magnetic time travel exactly the same problems the Apollo-astronauts showing. And they had to show they still where in orbit when they actually allready orbited the moon and vice verca.
In some of the photographs from Apollo 12 15 16 17 you see the same features in landscapes colored in a way indicating magnetic interferens. – It could be proof of extraterrestial presence!   Wink
Or it could be presence of the traveling system.  Smile
Lux

My feeling is:  if one accepts that NASA faked Apollo to some degree then
I have to conclude they most likely faked it 100%.

It seems to me it would be harder to fake it partially then to fake the whole
thing.  And, assuming they didn't intend to really put the Apollo astronauts on
the moon, why even bother putting them in orbit around it?

Just show the public the phony visuals and produce some rocks which they
already had (which may or may not have come from the moon).  Then
adjust their memories via MK-ULTRA techniques long in use.
johnlear

Re: Q for John about Apollo

AV8R wrote:

Sir,
Those engines constantly burn fuel as they are used, so the acutal weight of the lander was less than you claim.


I made no claim for the actual weight for the actual weight of the lander.
I said the maximum fuel weight of 22,000 pounds was insufficient for a deorbot, landing and takeoff to orbit in 64% gravity.


Quote:

I was not aware of any impossible lighting effects on the moon, can you give some details?


Certainly. There are 572 pages on the issue in "Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle Blowers" by Mary Bennett and David S. Percy. PLease feel free to inform yourself.

Let me know when you have finished it so we can discuss the details.

Quote:


There are plenty of pictures that show dust on the landers, these pictures also show the obvious blast damage to the surface.


Please post one of each. Thanks.

Quote:

I don't recall Buzz mentioning that during the "In the Shadow of the Moon" DVD.


You can read it either in "Return to Earth" by Colonel Edwin E. "Buzz" Aldrin Page 280-281 or In "Dark Mission, The Secret History of NASA"
by Hoagland and Bara Page 176.

Quote:

I am confused as to what that has to do with whether or not folks could walk after eight days in microgravity or a weighless state.


Don't be. Muscles, ligaments and other parts of the body that are not used in a weightless state tend to atrophy, When the gravity returns to normal these unused parts of the body get an increased flow of blood and it takes a few hours or days, depending on how long they have been weightless for, for the normal use to return.

Here an article with more information.

"Traveling light; coping with weightlessness in space"

Quote:
Weightlessness first of all produces a sensation of disequilibrium and of floating, due to a disruption in the normal functioning of sense organs such as the vestibular apparatus of the inner ear, sight, touch and muscle awareness. The cosmonaut has the impression of flying upside down or falling. Sometimes this is accompanied by disagreeable and very uncomfortable sensations of giddiness, weakness or nausea. The form and duration of these symptoms vary greatly from one individual to another. On more than 200 space flights, two-thirds of the subjects experienced them to some extent, lasting for periods ranging from a few hours to several days. Subsequently the symptoms wear off, only to reappear, as a rule, for the first few hours or days after returning to the Earth's gravitational field.


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1310/is_1987_June/ai_5079298

Feel free to inform yourself. Smile
tezzajw

Re: Q for John about Apollo

[quote="johnlear"]
Lux wrote:

You are correct. Up until a few weeks ago that is what I believed. I am no longer an 'Apollo hugger'. I am now a "No mooner".

Hey, John.

It's interesting that you have now let go of Apollo!  Cool.  I guess that's going to piss-off the anti-Lear crowd even more.

I'll wait to see Zorgon's work, as I'm hopeless at trying to look for minute details in images and videos.  Apollo smells fishy to me, far too steeped with propaganda and racing the Russians.  What's worse is that NASA hasn't been back to the Moon ever since and they have 'forgotten' how they got there in the first place.  Reading how they need to go back and look at old rocket designs in junk-yards is laughable.

Anyway, it's good to be typing to you on your own forum.
johnlear

Re: Q for John about Apollo

[quote="tezzajw"][quote="johnlear"]
Lux wrote:

 What's worse is that NASA hasn't been back to the Moon ever since and they have 'forgotten' how they got there in the first place.  Reading how they need to go back and look at old rocket designs in junk-yards is laughable.



It's possible that the Saturn V as we (the public) knew it never existed. They haven't 'forgotten' how it worked. It never worked in the first place. They can't go back and look at old rocket designs because the old rocket designs never existed. It was an illusion. A magic trick. Just a lot of smoke and noise.

They murdered Gus Grissom because he figured it out. His last public comment was, "This thing ain't going to the Moon in 2 years. This think ain't going to the Moon in 10 years.

I have to keep back pedaling because things  I thought for sure were true possibly weren't. For instance I thought all of the Apollo mission at least orbited the moon. Now its possible they didn't even do that. Even Apollo 8 and 10.

This of course means my cherished photos of buildings on the moon from Apollo 8 and 10 are either Lunar Orbiter photos cropped to look like Apollo photos or they are just fakes.

I am currently reading "Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistleblowers" by Mary Bennett and David S. Percy a very detailed, 570 page book, showing all of the technical reasons why all of the alleged Apollo missions to the Moon had to have been faked.

One of the interesting facts I just read about is the fact that the 'hatch' on the Lunar Lander was actually too small for an astronaut with a space suit on to get out of.

Another issue I pointed out is that the lunar lander has no seats or couches. The astronauts had to stand up and hold on to a bus type 'strap' for take off and landing. The takeoff achieved an alleged velocity of 5000 feet per second which is about 3,400 mph.

Here is a quote from Buzz Aldrin's book  "Return to Earth" in which he describes the takeoff in the Lunar Lander from the moon: "Lift-off from the moon after a stay totaling 21 hours was exactly on schedule and fairly uneventful. The ascent stage of the LM separted from the descent stage with its chunky body and spindly legs, sending out a shower of brilliant insulation particles which had been ripped off from the thrust of the ascent engine.

Seconds after lift off, the LM pitched forward about 45 degrees, and though we had anticipated it would be an abrupt maneuver and maybe even a frightening maneuver, the straps and springs securing us in the LM cushioned the tilt so much and the acceleration was so great it was barely noticeable. Three hours and ten minutes later we were connected once again to Columbia."

Anybody else see anything odd in that paragraph?
Lux

I don't understand the part where he says, "...the acceleration was so great
it was barely noticeable."

Seems to me that great acceleration would make it MORE noticeable, not
less.

On another note --
Just curious, do you know what Von Braun's role in the Apollo scam was?  
Any evidence that his V2 Nazi missile program was a scam as well?
johnlear

Lux wrote:
I don't understand the part where he says, "...the acceleration was so great
it was barely noticeable."

Seems to me that great acceleration would make it MORE noticeable, not
less.


Thats an example of Apollo doublespeak.



Quote:
On another note --
Just curious, do you know what Von Braun's role in the Apollo scam was?  
Any evidence that his V2 Nazi missile program was a scam as well?


The United States of America lost WW2. Germany provided the plutonium for trhe Hiroshima and Nagasaki boms. In return the top Nazi'z were allowed in the USA. It was organized and carried out by John Foster Dulles, Presdient Eisenhowers Secretary of State, Allen Dulles his brother and Director of the CIA and Eleanor Dulles, their sister and head of the US Department of State Berlin Desk in Germany. Between them the facilitated the Nazi infiltration of the USA. They were placed into ecxecutive position with major industrial companies.

When President Eisenhower gave his farewell speech in 1960 he knew what had happened under his watch and warned us of the power of the military-industrial complex.

So slick and careful and secret that none of us ever knew what had taken place. Most of us still don't know or realize what happened.

Himmler himself personally endowed every level of WvB Nazi rank.

The NAZI's formally took over the US space program with the formation of NASA in 1958.

WvB directed the development of the Saturn 5, the development of which hid the real space program.

No, the V2 was not a scam. Any allied bombing of Peenemunde was done very carefully so that no damage was done to any of the rockets, facilities or individuals.
Lux

Thanks.

I have suspected that the Lisa Nowak thing was a big set-up to discredit
her and likely because she was going to talk about something.  Have you
heard anything along those lines?
johnlear

Lux wrote:
Thanks.

I have suspected that the Lisa Nowak thing was a big set-up to discredit
her and likely because she was going to talk about something.  Have you
heard anything along those lines?


I haven't heard anything like that but that is exactly how it works. If somebody is being supremely discredited you can bet he/she was about to blow the whistle on some aspect of the coverup.

In the case of James Irwin, he was going to blow the whistle on the Apollo program but it was too explosive, (so to speak) so NASA had to kill him with a heart attack.
tezzajw

Re: Q for John about Apollo

[quote="johnlear"][quote="tezzajw"][quote="johnlear"]
Lux wrote:

I am currently reading "Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistleblowers" by Mary Bennett and David S. Percy a very detailed, 570 page book, showing all of the technical reasons why all of the alleged Apollo missions to the Moon had to have been faked.


Thanks for the tip, John.  I'll have to buy it.

If Saturn V was a smokescreen, what happened to it after it launched?  Were the astronauts actually in the rocket when it blasted off?  I'm just throwing out some questions, in case you have any working theories.

Thanks!
Lux

johnlear wrote:

I haven't heard anything like that but that is exactly how it works. If somebody is being supremely discredited you can bet he/she was about to blow the whistle on some aspect of the coverup.

In the case of James Irwin, he was going to blow the whistle on the Apollo program but it was too explosive, (so to speak) so NASA had to kill him with a heart attack.


Interesting. Speaking of explosions, have you heard anything about the
purpose of the Challenger disaster?  That whole "faulty o-ring" thing sounds
like a crock to me. Do you know why it was done?

And, while we're at it, what about the Columbia shuttle that broke up a
few years ago?  I remember seeing a picture posted on the web showing
what looked like a lightning bolt hitting the shuttle shortly before the
breakup.  This was swept under the rug by NASA as I recall.

Have you heard any inside poop about either of these events?
johnlear

Re: Q for John about Apollo

[quote="tezzajw"][quote="johnlear"][quote="tezzajw"]
johnlear wrote:
Lux wrote:

I am currently reading "Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistleblowers" by Mary Bennett and David S. Percy a very detailed, 570 page book, showing all of the technical reasons why all of the alleged Apollo missions to the Moon had to have been faked.


Thanks for the tip, John.  I'll have to buy it.

If Saturn V was a smokescreen, what happened to it after it launched?  Were the astronauts actually in the rocket when it blasted off?  I'm just throwing out some questions, in case you have any working theories.

Thanks!


I am researching those very questions as we speak.
johnlear

Lux wrote:
johnlear wrote:

I haven't heard anything like that but that is exactly how it works. If somebody is being supremely discredited you can bet he/she was about to blow the whistle on some aspect of the coverup.

In the case of James Irwin, he was going to blow the whistle on the Apollo program but it was too explosive, (so to speak) so NASA had to kill him with a heart attack.


Interesting. Speaking of explosions, have you heard anything about the
purpose of the Challenger disaster?  That whole "faulty o-ring" thing sounds
like a crock to me. Do you know why it was done?

And, while we're at it, what about the Columbia shuttle that broke up a
few years ago?  I remember seeing a picture posted on the web showing
what looked like a lightning bolt hitting the shuttle shortly before the
breakup.  This was swept under the rug by NASA as I recall.

Have you heard any inside poop about either of these events?



The Challenger disaster was caused by the failure of one of the hold down clamps. It did not release and caused extreme damage. I forget who showed me those pictures or where I saw them

Columbia was a dedicated Israeli spy mission. Who did what to who or why I don't know. But I believe that Columbia was hit with a Direct Energy Weapon on re-entry.
Lux

Thanks.  Boy, I'm sure glad I never wanted to be an astronaut.  Cool
AV8R

Lux wrote:
I don't understand the part where he says, "...the acceleration was so great
it was barely noticeable."

He is referring to the pitch over manuever.

How can that be construed as double speak?
Lux

AV8R wrote:
Lux wrote:
I don't understand the part where he says, "...the acceleration was so great
it was barely noticeable."

He is referring to the pitch over manuever.

How can that be construed as double speak?


Who are you asking? I didn't say anything about doublespeak.  

Please learn how to read and post on a forum.  It is annoying to have
other people's statements wrongly attributed to oneself.
AV8R

Lux wrote:

Who are you asking? I didn't say anything about doublespeak.  

No, but Mr. Lear did.  I was trying to figure out how that could be construed as doublespeak.

Quote:

Please learn how to read and post on a forum.  It is annoying to have
other people's statements wrongly attributed to oneself.


At no point did I attribute that statement to you.  I was not going to post twice on what is esentially the same topic.  If you took offense, I apologize.

Next time I will seperate it out for those of you who need it.
johnlear

AV8R wrote:
Lux wrote:
I don't understand the part where he says, "...the acceleration was so great
it was barely noticeable."

He is referring to the pitch over manuever.

How can that be construed as double speak?



Doublespeak is where he says the acceleration was so great it was barely noticeable.

Doublespeak is where you say something ridiculous and then swear to it.

Remember they are allegedly accelerating at 5000 feet per second, thats roughly a mile a second, standing up? And all they have is arm rests?

At 5000 feet per second acceleration?

AV8R

johnlear wrote:

Doublespeak is where he says the acceleration was so great it was barely noticeable.

Sir,
If you read the whole statment, it sounds like he is referring to the pitch over manuever rather than the acceleration forces.

Quote:
Seconds after lift off, the LM pitched forward about 45 degrees, and though we had anticipated it would be an abrupt maneuver and maybe even a frightening maneuver, the straps and springs securing us in the LM cushioned the tilt so much and the acceleration was so great it was barely noticeable.
Lux

AV8R wrote:
I apologize.

Thank you.

Quote:
Next time I will seperate it out


Thank you again.
kungfu

i have to agree with av8r on this one,

in his statement 'it' clearly refers to the maneuver not the acceleration forces.

once i had the honor of spending some time with a shuttle astronaut and I asked him what it felt like to blast off.

he said it felt like you put a heavy iron grate on your chest and then someone stands on it

i imagine with those kind of forces acting on you, similar to at an amusement park, the force of acceleration is so great while going down that first hill that you don't notice the hot babe in a bikini watching you from teh side.

       johnlearsmoon.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> Questions for John Lear
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum