John Lear - Is there a breathable atmosphere on the moon?

Holographic Universe or Computer Simulation? Big Bang or God?

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Re: The Biggest Lie from Septic Overlord and ATS

Postby yfxxx » Tue Apr 29, 2008 7:47 am

Zorgon wrote:
yfxxx wrote:I don't listen to advice form a blind man telling me to read a certain book about colours! :P


Hmmm a better analogy would be "A blind man being offered surgery to make him see, and he turns it down"

You're still the same preposterous idiot! I'm a physicist by education, not you!

Dang it! What happened to that big post I just made a few hours back? Arrggggg

Maybe the forum software has a new anti-b*llsh*t filter? :mrgreen:
yfxxx
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:55 pm
Location: Germany


Re: The Biggest Lie from Septic Overlord and ATS

Postby yfxxx » Tue Apr 29, 2008 8:21 am

johnlear wrote:Now if you wanted to challenge my claim that people live on Saturn and you post that the only evidence you would accept would be a trip to Saturn to see for yourself, then of course, I couldn't accept the challenge in all fairness as I have no way of transporting you to Saturn.

Oh no, that's not the way it works!! A very large majority of people, who have studied Saturn, say the planet is a big ball of gas, consisting mainly of hydrogen, etc.etc., with absolutely no place where "people" (as in "humans or humanoids") could live. This is backed up by lots of observational evidence, both earth- and space-based!

Therefore, it's you who makes the challenge, and it's you who has to provide not only solid evidence for your claim of "people living there", but also has to provide evidence why all the widely accepted observations (e.g. of Saturn's mass, size and composition) are faulty.

Please go ahead, and provide said evidence! I'm waiting ...

{Edit: Just read the "call for a stand-down" from AccessDenied, and that your account has been suspended. So I guess my posting will remain unanswered ... :roll: }
yfxxx
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:55 pm
Location: Germany

Re: The Biggest Lie from Septic Overlord and ATS

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Tue Apr 29, 2008 10:27 am

Geezus!!! I go out for dinner with my sister and nieces, turn-in for a good night's sleep, and now I see everyone else jumping in on my "fun with wacked-out Lear" here! :)

johnlear wrote:You make the challenge and then post what you would accept as final, incontrovertible, veridical evidence. That way we don't start something that can't be finished and that way you can't go around claiming that I can't back up my claims because you have demanded evidence that is impossible to provide.


This is preposterous, not to mention highly unscientific. I'm not sure what credentials you possess in science, but it would appear you may have been living under a rock (moon rock?) for some time. The point of science is falsification of a hypothesis. It is not "about me" and that means it is not for ME to select evidence for YOUR claim! YOU *pokes* need to do that (did I use that right torbjon?). You present your most compelling evidence for why you think something is true, and I falsify it with evidence anyone can test (i.e. veridical). Got it? If not, let's take a look at this:

For instance, one of my claims is that there is a breathable atmosphere on the moon. If you challenged me to prove it and you posted that you would only accept the evidence if you yourself could draw a deep breath of clear, cold moon air then of course, no sense in accepting the challenge because I have no way of taking you to the moon. See what I mean?


All I see is that you are clueless about how to go about validating your hypothesis. For me to restrict evidence to only one that I can personally vet would not be scientific at all. Instead, you need to provide evidence that CAN be vetted by anyone with a reasonable effort....then I refute it with more compelling evidence. For example, you claim there is a breathable atmosphere on the moon. I can show you why this is not true by falsifying it based on what we know about breathable atmospheres:

1) Breathable atmospheres induce thermal effects due to unequal solar heating that lead to pressure patterns that shape weather. (As a pilot you should know this. As an aerospace engineering professor, I can even model this mathematically. Can you?)
2) These weather patterns cause soil erosion due to wind effects, even if there is no water.
3) However, we can clearly see craters that have been in existence for quite a long time...no erosion.
4) Further to this, a breathable atmosphere would create high levels of friction on any object (meteorite) entering said atmosphere. This would serve to disintegrate a large number of metorites before they ever hit the surface. Not much evidence of that happening.

The way this works is because these FACTS above serve to falsify your hypothesis, your hypothesis must now produce evidence for why these facts are not observed on your alleged lunar breathable atmosphere. Ergo, your job gets even harder in the face of facts that we know to be true... that IS the way science works.

So to save you a little trouble here Ray, if you plan on challenging me on any of those claims that require impossible to provide evidence you might want to keep them in your BS basket for the time being and be content with telling all your friends that "Lear can't back up his claims". They'll continue to keep you in their "genius" basket.


I am most certainly not the one with trouble. You are. For clearly if you are making such wild claims, and then you go on to say the evidence is "impossible to provide", you have defeated yourself before you even started. Again, *I* am not the one to set bounds on your evidence. I simply refute why that evidence is NOT evidence in the face of other facts that anyone else can look into, such as the above.

And speaking of BS basket, you seem to have the biggest BS basket I have ever run across. Now, do you plan to set out evidence to support why you think there is a breathable atmosphere on the moon, or do you wish to play games? The clock is ticking... and I see you have already been suspended (damn! I wanted a piece of your hide).

Ray
Last edited by You Can Call Me Ray on Tue Apr 29, 2008 10:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: The Biggest Lie from Septic Overlord and ATS

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Wed Apr 30, 2008 1:07 am

Just to make sure there is no guessing here, Mr. Lear: I am not going away, and I await your response to my refutation.

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: The Biggest Lie from Septic Overlord and ATS

Postby johnlear » Wed Apr 30, 2008 1:30 am

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:Just to make sure there is no guessing here, Mr. Lear: I am not going away, and I await your response to my refutation.

Ray


Thanks for holding on Ray. I was ready at 6am this morning but RU will not accept unicode. As I have a number of mathematical symbols to present I need unicode operational. I worked on it all day with Zorgon until we determined the problem was with RU setup. I contacted caleban who referred me to Zep Tepi. Thanks for your understanding. :)
johnlear
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:46 pm

Re: The Biggest Lie from Septic Overlord and ATS

Postby johnlear » Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:31 am

yfxxx wrote:She talks to you about her "theory"?!? Nuff said!


Yes and the reason is I am not all that strong in math I need clarification for certain things.

For instance in her email today, April 29, 2008 she was responding to my question about the formula Fs=a.A where a is v2.r. She states that the correlation coefficient is r=0.9999 and I had asked her if the correlation coefficient was for the orbital velocity at semimajor (v) versus semimajor axis of revolution (r) and she said yes.

I also asked her how she determined the correlation coefficient and she said when she had originally done the work in the 1980's that no software was available to plot the data or do the statistics and that she used a handheld calculator to calculate the logarithm of each individual data. She said she used the procedures for calculations of the Confidence Intervals of the slope and the intercept out of the book Applied Linear Regression by Sanford Weisberg published by John Wiley and Sons. But she says now she can use http://www.polysoftware.

This same data is plotted on a logarithmic paper and presented on page 127 of Gravitational Force of the Sun.

Pari has been very helpful in helping me get a leg up on thoroughly understanding her theories.
johnlear
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:46 pm

Re: John Lear - Is there a breathable atmosphere on the moon?

Postby lost_shaman » Wed Apr 30, 2008 4:11 am

O.k. John,

Please humor me and explain how exactly these 'theories' (hypotheses) differ from mainstream understanding of Gravity and explain a 'breathable' Atmosphere on the Moon?
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Re: The Biggest Lie from Septic Overlord and ATS

Postby johnlear » Wed Apr 30, 2008 6:04 am

johnlear wrote:
You Can Call Me Ray wrote:Just to make sure there is no guessing here, Mr. Lear: I am not going away, and I await your response to my refutation.

Ray


Thanks for holding on Ray. I was ready at 6am this morning but RU will not accept unicode. As I have a number of mathematical symbols to present I need unicode operational. I worked on it all day with Zorgon until we determined the problem was with RU setup. I contacted caleban who referred me to Zep Tepi. Thanks for your understanding. :)


You Can Call Me Ray wrote:
All I see is that you are clueless about how to go about validating your hypothesis. For me to restrict evidence to only one that I can personally vet would not be scientific at all. Instead, you need to provide evidence that CAN be vetted by anyone with a reasonable effort....then I refute it with more compelling evidence. For example, you claim there is a breathable atmosphere on the moon. I can show you why this is not true by falsifying it based on what we know about breathable atmospheres:

1) Breathable atmospheres induce thermal effects due to unequal solar heating that lead to pressure patterns that shape weather. (As a pilot you should know this. As an aerospace engineering professor, I can even model this mathematically. Can you?)
2) These weather patterns cause soil erosion due to wind effects, even if there is no water.
3) However, we can clearly see craters that have been in existence for quite a long time...no erosion.
4) Further to this, a breathable atmosphere would create high levels of friction on any object (meteorite) entering said atmosphere. This would serve to disintegrate a large number of metorites before they ever hit the surface. Not much evidence of that happening.

The way this works is because these FACTS above serve to falsify your hypothesis, your hypothesis must now produce evidence for why these facts are not observed on your alleged lunar breathable atmosphere. Ergo, your job gets even harder in the face of facts that we know to be true... that IS the way science works.

And speaking of BS basket, you seem to have the biggest BS basket I have ever run across. Now, do you plan to set out evidence to support why you think there is a breathable atmosphere on the moon, or do you wish to play games? The clock is ticking... and I see you have already been suspended (damn! I wanted a piece of your hide).

Ray


Thanks for the post Ray and let me respectfully add to your list of why there cannot, according to mainstream science, be a breathable atmosphere on the moon.

The Cavendish experiment would have us believe that the density of the earth is 5.5 gr cm3. And because of alleged samples of moon and 'soundings' mainstream science concludes that the density of the moon is 3.4 gr cm3>. If we plug those numbers into Newtons Law of Universal gravitation, which incidentally was not his formula and appears nowhere in Principia we come up with a result that the moons gravity is equal to one sixth that of earth. This would not be sufficient gravity to hold a breathable atmosphere.

According to the Astronomical Almanac for the Year 2009 published by the United States Naval Observatory in Washington D.C. the gravitational force of the moon is equal to 1.540260256 x 1013. The equatorial radius of the Moon in 1,737,400 m. The area of the Moon's equator is 9.48308205 x 1012. So, the acceleration at the Moon's equator is 1.624219059 m/s2. This is about one-sixth of the acceleration at the Earth's equator or about 16.57%. And these alleged numbers have been allegedly confirmed by the Apollo astronauts during that alleged space program. If true this certainly would not be sufficient to hold a breathable atmosphere.

Using the Bullialdus/Newton law of Inverse Square which states that some physical quantity or strength is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source of that physical quantity" and using the 'neutral point' of 43,495 miles given to us by Wernher Von Braun and approximated to that value by Apollo 17 astronaut Gene Cernan in his book, "Last Man On the Moon" and Reginald Turnhill in his book "The Moon Landings" and using generally accepted diameters of the Moon and Earth and distances between these two bodies we come up with a value of .64 which means that the calculated gravity of the Moon using Earth as a value of 1 would be 64% that of Earth.

But "Catch 22" in mainstream science says, "But wait, you haven't taken into consideration the gravity of the Sun which creates an enormously complex '3 body problem'. You would have to know the exact date of the measurements of the neutral point, then the eccentricity of the moon on that date, you would have to know the phase of the Moon whether new, full, first or third quarter and the exact perturbation by the Sun on that date and subtract it before you can attribute the effect to the Moon's gravitational force."

It is unlikely that anybody is going to go to all the trouble of solving 'an enormously complex third body problem' only to find out that the Bullialdus/Newton solution of 64% has now been reduced to 16% by the perturbation of the sun during the moons first quarter. :)

That said let me refer you to your statement:

Now, do you plan to set out evidence to support why you think there is a breathable atmosphere on the moon, or do you wish to play games? The clock is ticking... and I see you have already been suspended (damn! I wanted a piece of your hide).


The solution to a problem is first addressed by understanding the problem. And I believe I have an excellent understanding of mainstream science proof of why the Moon could not have a breathable atmosphere and I would be a fool to address the issue on these terms and to submit to a review of my alleged peers who are evaluating on mainstream scientific dogma.

However cracks are beginning to appear in mainstream sciences current dogma of how gravity works, what gravity is and what mass really is or isn't. I suspect that it won't belong before the currently accepted pillars of Newtons Law of Universal Gravitation come crashing down, having been hoisted only by an enormous petard of its own gaseous mix seriously damaging many world wide egos not to mention the foundations of mainstream science itself.

As to wanting 'a piece' of 'my hide' let me respectfully suggest that you get in line; it goes around the corner and all the way down the block.
johnlear
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:46 pm

Re: The Biggest Lie from Septic Overlord and ATS

Postby yfxxx » Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:30 am

Based on the staff statement, that refusal to defend a point of view in light of specific questions would lead to a site ban, I'm going to challenge you on last time on this issue!

I snipped of all the unintelligible and/or irrelevant stuff.

johnlear wrote:According to the Astronomical Almanac for the Year 2009 published by the United States Naval Observatory in Washington D.C. the gravitational force of the moon is equal to 1.540260256 x 1013. The equatorial radius of the Moon in 1,737,400 m. The area of the Moon's equator is 9.48308205 x 1012. So, the acceleration at the Moon's equator is 1.624219059 m/s2. This is about one-sixth of the acceleration at the Earth's equator or about 16.57%. And these alleged numbers have been allegedly confirmed by the Apollo astronauts during that alleged space program. If true this certainly would not be sufficient to hold a breathable atmosphere.


Let's ignore the fact, that you didn't provide a unit of measurement for half of your numbers, which shows that you have no idea how to present scientific data, and also shows that you apparently didn't really unterstand what you wrote anyway. Terms like "area of the Moon's equator" don't make sense at all, because the equator is a line, which doesn't have an area. But that's not my point.

So, to calculate the moon's surface gravity, we need:
1) The mass m of the moon
2) The radius r of the moon
3) The formula to calculate the gravitational acceleration g from m and r:

g = G * m/r^2 (G = Gravitational constant)

And here are my specific questions to you:
Q1
Do you agree, that the 3 items above are sufficient to calculate the moon's surface gravity? If not, state what else would be needed, and why!

Q2
Do you agree that the moon's mean radius is (approximately) 1737 km? If not, give evidence for your negative answer (e.g. pointing out which specific errors were made when measuring the moon's diameter by, say, observing it from earth and calculating the true size using the known earth-moon distance).

Q3
Do you agree that the moon's mass is about 7.35*10^22 kg? If not, please provide evidence, why the measurements of the moon's mass using astronomical observations (see http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath469.htm) are wrong. Such measurements have been made with increasing precision since hundreds of years.
Since the moon's mass is critical to your argument about a higher-than-generally-assumed surface gravity, you can not simply say that the "astronomers got it wrong"! Provide supporting evidence from a reasonably up-to-date and scientifically valid source, if you claim that earth-based observations of the moon's mass are invalid.

Q4
Do you agree that, given mass m and radius r, the moon's surface gravity can be calculated using the formula in item (3)? If not, provide strong evidence for your assumption, that Newton's Law of gravitaional attraction is grossly wrong (as opposed to very slightly off, because of non-uniform mass distribution, relativistic effects, unknown quantum effects etc., all of which is completely negligible for our general argument about a 0.16ge vs. 0.64ge moon surface gravity). Be aware, that Newton's Law has been shown by innumerable observations and measurements in the solar system to be very accurate, so in order to dismiss Newton's Law, you would have to explain why it appears to be so accurate!

=> If you either answer all 4 questions with "yes" (and a failure to answer any of the questions would be regarded as a "yes"!) or can't provide any solid evidence for your "no"s, then I ask you to retract your claim, that the moon's surface gravity is significantly different from the generally accepted value of about 1/6 of earth's.


Now, as a free service, I'll show where the error lies in your argument ...

johnlear wrote:Using the Bullialdus/Newton law of Inverse Square which states that some physical quantity or strength is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source of that physical quantity" and using the 'neutral point' of 43,495 miles given to us by Wernher Von Braun and approximated to that value by Apollo 17 astronaut Gene Cernan in his book, "Last Man On the Moon" and Reginald Turnhill in his book "The Moon Landings" and using generally accepted diameters of the Moon and Earth and distances between these two bodies we come up with a value of .64 which means that the calculated gravity of the Moon using Earth as a value of 1 would be 64% that of Earth.

{remaining irrelevant gibberish snipped ...}

I know from the past that your argument goes essentially like this:

A) You look at the problem in the frame of reference (FR), where the earth and moon are fixed, and assume that the Apollo spacecraft travelled a straight line between earth and moon in this FR.

B) You (implicitly) assume, that your FR is an inertial FR, i.e. a non-accelerating and non-rotating one.

C) With this assumption, you can calculate a point on the straight line between earth and moon, where the gravitational attraction between two bodies cancels out. Using the quoted value of 43495 miles (69600 km) distance from the moon, you arrive at a moon surface gravity of .64ge.

However, your assumption (B) is false! The FR, where earth and moon are fixed, is a rotating FR! This makes calculation of points where earth's and moon's gravitational pull cancels out (for a body, which moves at relatively low velocities within this FR), much more complicated. In fact, such points are known as "Lagrange Points" - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange_point. The Lagrange Point, which presumably comes closest to what you regard as a "neutral point", is L1. L1 is about 61500 km from the moon, which is already rather close to the quoted "69600 km". It's important to note, that the position of L1 was of course calculated using the generally accepted values for the moon's mass and gravity!

So, where could the remaining difference (61500 km vs. 69600 km) come from? Simple - the Apollo trajectories did not follow a straight line in the fixed-earth-moon FR, and as such did not pass through L1! On the Wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange_point , there is a map of the "effective potential" in the fixed-earth-moon FR, and you can see that this is not a very simple structure. For an "off-center" trajectory, the closese thing to a "neutral point" is the point where a (comparatively slow) spacecraft goes over a local maximum of the potential. These maxima are very roughly(!) on a smooth curve from L4 over L1 to L5. Therefore, for trajectories not on the "center line", the distance of these "neutral point" from the moon increases significantly.


And now, I await your answers to the four emphasized questions above! And don't dare to evade them!!

yf
yfxxx
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:55 pm
Location: Germany

Re: The Biggest Lie from Septic Overlord and ATS

Postby johnlear » Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:33 pm

yfxxx wrote:
I snipped of all the unintelligible and/or irrelevant stuff.


So did I. Thanks for the post yfxxx. :)
johnlear
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:46 pm

Re: The Biggest Lie from Septic Overlord and ATS

Postby yfxxx » Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:51 pm

johnlear wrote:
yfxxx wrote:
I snipped of all the unintelligible and/or irrelevant stuff.


So did I. Thanks for the post yfxxx. :)


WARNING: You grossly violated the requirement to answer to direct questions! If you repeat doing so, I'll look forward to the reaction of the site admins :mrgreen: !

I'll repeat my questions here (for the details, refer to my original posting):
--------------------
Q1
Do you agree, that the 3 items above are sufficient to calculate the moon's surface gravity? If not, state what else would be needed, and why!

Q2
Do you agree that the moon's mean radius is (approximately) 1737 km? If not, give evidence for your negative answer (e.g. pointing out which specific errors were made when measuring the moon's diameter by, say, observing it from earth and calculating the true size using the known earth-moon distance).

Q3
Do you agree that the moon's mass is about 7.35*10^22 kg? If not, please provide evidence, why the measurements of the moon's mass using astronomical observations (see http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath469.htm) are wrong. Such measurements have been made with increasing precision since hundreds of years.
Since the moon's mass is critical to your argument about a higher-than-generally-assumed surface gravity, you can not simply say that the "astronomers got it wrong"! Provide supporting evidence from a reasonably up-to-date and scientifically valid source, if you claim that earth-based observations of the moon's mass are invalid.

Q4
Do you agree that, given mass m and radius r, the moon's surface gravity can be calculated using the formula in item (3)? If not, provide strong evidence for your assumption, that Newton's Law of gravitaional attraction is grossly wrong (as opposed to very slightly off, because of non-uniform mass distribution, relativistic effects, unknown quantum effects etc., all of which is completely negligible for our general argument about a 0.16ge vs. 0.64ge moon surface gravity). Be aware, that Newton's Law has been shown by innumerable observations and measurements in the solar system to be very accurate, so in order to dismiss Newton's Law, you would have to explain why it appears to be so accurate!

=> If you either answer all 4 questions with "yes" (and a failure to answer any of the questions would be regarded as a "yes"!) or can't provide any solid evidence for your "no"s, then I ask you to retract your claim, that the moon's surface gravity is significantly different from the generally accepted value of about 1/6 of earth's.
------------------

In case you really don't understand the questions, I ask for the opinion of the admins, if they think the questions should be understood by someone who claims enough knowledge of astronomy and celestial mechanics to challenge the accepted value for the moon's surface gravity.
If the questions are considered simple enough, and you refuse to answer them, then I ask you to retract your claim, that the moon's surface gravity is significantly different from the generally accepted value of about 1/6 of earth's.
If the questions are considered too complicated or unintelligible, I'll take advice to rephrase them.

yf
yfxxx
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:55 pm
Location: Germany

Re: The Biggest Lie from Septic Overlord and ATS

Postby Access Denied » Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:50 pm

johnlear wrote:
yfxxx wrote:
I snipped of all the unintelligible and/or irrelevant stuff.


So did I. Thanks for the post yfxxx. :)

John, your choice:

1. Answer yfxxx’s questions with well supported counterarguments.
2. Admit defeat and forever renounce your claim of greater than ~1/6 Earth gravity and a breathable atmosphere on the moon.
3. Be forever banned from RU.

I’m off to work and will check back in when I get home… the clock is ticking. :)
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: The Biggest Lie from Septic Overlord and ATS

Postby johnlear » Wed Apr 30, 2008 6:34 pm

Access Denied wrote:
johnlear wrote:
yfxxx wrote:
I snipped of all the unintelligible and/or irrelevant stuff.


So did I. Thanks for the post yfxxx. :)

John, your choice:

1. Answer yfxxx’s questions with well supported counterarguments.
2. Admit defeat and forever renounce your claim of greater than ~1/6 Earth gravity and a breathable atmosphere on the moon.
3. Be forever banned from RU.

I’m off to work and will check back in when I get home… the clock is ticking. :)


You need to stop with your threats AD. They show a lack of emotional maturity.

I've responded to all questions so far so I really don't see the need for this type of post.

If it makes you feel like a big man to threaten me, heck be my guest.

If I don't happen to make it in whatever deadline you have concocted my answer will be posted on my website. I have other work to do myself. And educating you and yfxxx is not high on the list of my priorities. Neither one of you has read nor are you likely to read, in my opinion, Pari Spolters book, "Gravitational Force of the Sun". So that leaves me faced with presenting her theory which took her 255 pages to write.

Oh. By the way AD. Let me respectfully suggest where you put your ticking clock. :)
johnlear
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:46 pm

Re: John Lear - Is there a breathable atmosphere on the moon?

Postby Chorlton » Wed Apr 30, 2008 6:44 pm

Pari Spolter?? Good Grief Lear you really are grabbing at straws arent you?
A solitary well acknowledged nutcase?. Then again she does have some qualifications which is more than can be said for your mate Lazar.

By the way, you arent on ATS here, I would suggest you do as youre told or you will have even more time to 'do your work' whatever that is. Though I personally would encourage your actions as it will get you booted from here.
I do note your windows on the Internet world are reducing daily and soon you'll only have the doting idiots on OM and GLP to clean your shoes for you.
I have become that which I always despised and feared........Old !

My greatest wish, would be to own my own scrapyard.
User avatar
Chorlton
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:02 pm

Re: John Lear - Is there a breathable atmosphere on the moon?

Postby johnlear » Wed Apr 30, 2008 7:14 pm

Chorlton wrote:Pari Spolter?? Good Grief Lear you really are grabbing at straws arent you?
A solitary well acknowledged nutcase?. Then again she does have some qualifications which is more than can be said for your mate Lazar.

By the way, you arent on ATS here, I would suggest you do as youre told or you will have even more time to 'do your work' whatever that is. Though I personally would encourage your actions as it will get you booted from here.
I do note your windows on the Internet world are reducing daily and soon you'll only have the doting idiots on OM and GLP to clean your shoes for you.



Thats my motto "Banned By The Best". :)
johnlear
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:46 pm

PreviousNext

Google

Return to Reality

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron