Pegasus Document Release #005

If memory serves me correctly John Lear has a pic of the moon base you have?

Here ya go www.sacred-texts.com...

Originally posted by SholaHopper
Could the camouflage be for extra uv shielding?

From what i understand, you can get a pretty nasty sun burn at 15,000 feet, so would the moon's atmosphere (being equal to ours at 15,000) allow the same amount of uv through?

If the Moon had this kind of atmosphere, there wouldn't be as many craters there, the composition of the lunar soil would be different (beause of different exposure to radiation), there would be dust storms due to winds and the moon would have a bluish hue due to oxygen, which, alas, is not present there in reality.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by SholaHopper
Could the camouflage be for extra uv shielding?

From what i understand, you can get a pretty nasty sun burn at 15,000 feet, so would the moon's atmosphere (being equal to ours at 15,000) allow the same amount of uv through?

If the Moon had this kind of atmosphere, there wouldn't be as many craters there, the composition of the lunar soil would be different (beause of different exposure to radiation), there would be dust storms due to winds and the moon would have a bluish hue due to oxygen, which, alas, is not present there in reality.

Thank you for the 'reality check' buddha,

As I am currently posting on a thread in John Lear's forum, I am operating under the assumption that John has no reason to lie and wishes to divulge what he has come to learn.

One way to test a theory is to temporarily assume its true and from there ask questions. If the answers to these questions are not consistent with the theory then this theory begins to fall apart around you.

This is a polite and respectful way of publicly proving or discrediting any claim.

Originally posted by SholaHopper

As I am currently posting on a thread in John Lear's forum, I am operating under the assumption that John has no reason to lie and wishes to divulge what he has come to learn.

If this was your first dance in this forum, then I could see how that much naivety might seem cordial and the right thing to use when approaching such outlandish and unsupported claims. However, some have been around here and used that route many moons ago to no avail, which a quick read through some of the threads on this forum would answer for you. No reason not to come in here preprepared, huh, so might want to go read through a lot of the threads, a lot of the direct questions proposed to John and his answers before blindly assuming he is here to no nothing less than shine the angelic light of truth upon our ignorantly darkened faces....

I am operating under the assumption that John has no reason to lie and wishes to divulge what he has come to learn.

He has plenty of reason to lie (not saying he is, I think he actually believes half the crap he spouts). And he has REPEATEDLY avoided divulging KEY information on HOT issues THAT HE CLAIMS TO KNOW that would SETTLE some debates in one sentence. He hasn't....hmmm...why not?

Sholahopper....keep an open mind but try not to let your brain fall out.

One way to test a theory is to temporarily assume its true and from there ask questions. If the answers to these questions are not consistent with the theory then this theory begins to fall apart around you.

We have done that. Countless times. The old "O.K., if (insert outlandish claim here) is true, then we would be able to tell by) insert predictable and repeatable scientific method, mathematics, logic and reason here)"...but alas they do always fall apart under that type of scrutiny. So what happens when a ton of people can shoot your "claims" out of the water with science, math, logic, reason, and common sense? Easy, start attacking those traits....you see examples of it everywhere...John will use the word "mainstream" when someone comes at him with verifiable, repeatable facts and doable demonstrations that would prove him wrong in an effort to provoke a knee jerk emotional response from his followers...whom he assumes ashews anything mainstream and therefore he and his ideas become a little more appealing to them, thus they kick and scream against reality even harder. When he is backed into a corner, he whips out another "convenient" theory....usually on that plays on most woo woos fears of "the man" "Nasa" or (insert goverment boogie man here). Again, he wants you to believe 2+2 is 4.12654 and instruments like spectrographs are all in on that supremely powerful organization's (Nasa) desire to fool the entire world, even independent researchers, LOL.

I swear, sometimes I am tempted to think John makes this stuff up as he goes, however he is usually pretty consistent in his wild claims and his obtrusive ways of defending them....but that is not because they are true, but because he has been doing this a long time and has had it out (so to speak) with some very smart people in the past, allowing him to better craft his, ah, stories and responses to allow him an easier defense in the future.




[edit on 29-11-2007 by IgnoreTheFacts]

[edit on 29-11-2007 by IgnoreTheFacts]

reply to post by spikedmilk


Y'know, it would be nice to know what that shadow is about, if it is a terminator or something else. A ship showing up could reflect enough light to illuminate surrounding hills. But then there is the alleged studio shot all the same.

I still am impressed by that "tear in space" on the Moon thread. Very telling. I am still of the opinion most of the anomalies we have found are doctored aerial photos of Earth, and the reality of mining operations are much diminished from original conceptions.

I am not categorically stating that we have not been to the Moon, but all the times we were there is a claim I must call into question, especially after receiving such a stern warning about returning after the first time.

There is much aerial activity during the early reconnaissances and the first landing which leads to a suspicion of being watched. And I don't think it was the press.

reply to post by Matyas


I wont lie to ya, when I first saw these pics and putting them together with the 'comm' btwn NASA and Armstrong and the alleged story of Armstrong telling his story to his professor friend (forgive me I dont have the name), my initial thought was "Were there warning shots fired at them?" I mean how else do we warn people out of places they belong? Other than electric fences and black and orange no trespassing signs. Seriously though, I'm not that naive. That was when I first really started into this "thing" with the moon and mars etc....
Some reports indicate the first thing they saw when exited the LM was either craft or a base. I'm in no way saying it was, just throwing out there whats already been thrown at us. And here might be a pic with something that can either be explained naturally or not. Your guess is as good as mine. Maybe its me, but it would appear as it is the only thing out of focus in the whole shot while everything else is. Like something in motion. In any case, thanks for checking it out!
spikeD

reply to post by spikedmilk


From the theory you posted, one can surmise that the lunar surface is virtually peppered with alien craft, bases and amusement parks. Otherwise, the chance of Mr.Armstrong landing right on top of an alien igloo on the Moon must be astronomically small. That whole thing is way beyond any credibility.

reply to post by buddhasystem


yeah. I'm not even psychic and I knew you'd be the first to comment on that right away. Heck, I dont even have a PhD and I knew I could count on you. Of course, I'm saying all this respectfully. I didnt join ATS to bash anybody's ideas no matter how far out there they or whether I agree with them or not. Sir, apparently you dont relish in just having a perfect conversation where you can either use some ioda of imagination or even postulate some fiction mixed with a little bit of truth. However I guess a perfect conversation for you is fact fact fact fact. I like facts too, but I also like to think what other possibilites there may be. I never posed any theory really. I proposed what was I was thinking. I never laid out any facts and wrote a thesis for you professor. If I come as a smarta**, i dont mean no disrespect. Its just my humor. But, this is a group forum. EVERYONES opinion are pretty much welcome here. Even your's sir.

And for your information, if there were amusement parks on the moon...I still wouldnt go. I hate lines and think of the mark-up for the concessions up there.

Originally posted by spikedmilk
And for your information, if there were amusement parks on the moon...I still wouldnt go. I hate lines and think of the mark-up for the concessions up there.

Maybe we should check if there is a season pass included with a recent copy of Hoagland's book or whatever

Thanks for being a good sport, I appreciate that.

Maybe we should check if there is a season pass included with a recent copy of Hoagland's book or whatever

Thanks for being a good sport, I appreciate that.


no problem - just bein me.

Please forgive if this has been stated. I'm trying to read posts while working.

The covering is unlikely to be "camouflage". It would be very likely it is a combination of insulation and protection from various nasty little items unblocked due to the lack of sufficient atmosphere. This would be an absolute must with the Moons surface being unshielded against the Sun by an atmosphere capable of deflecting anything.

Very interesting post none the less. Thanks Zorgon.

Sorry about the atmosphere comment John. You know you love it though. Without us the Forum would not be nearly as interesting.

Edited to appologize. I see a couple of others already commented on that.

[edit on 11/29/2007 by Blaine91555]

[edit on 11/29/2007 by Blaine91555]

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts

Originally posted by SholaHopper

As I am currently posting on a thread in John Lear's forum, I am operating under the assumption that John has no reason to lie and wishes to divulge what he has come to learn.

If this was your first dance in this forum, then I could see how that much naivety might seem cordial and the right thing to use when approaching such outlandish and unsupported claims. However, some have been around here and used that route many moons ago to no avail, which a quick read through some of the threads on this forum would answer for you. No reason not to come in here preprepared, huh, so might want to go read through a lot of the threads, a lot of the direct questions proposed to John and his answers before blindly assuming he is here to no nothing less than shine the angelic light of truth upon our ignorantly darkened faces....


[edit on 29-11-2007 by IgnoreTheFacts]

[edit on 29-11-2007 by IgnoreTheFacts]

Ignore, thanks for your input. You are certainly welcome to vent your frustrations. At the same time please pass me the courtesy of fumbling around in my 'naivety' (as you put it) peacefully.

Thankyou

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Very interesting post none the less. Thanks Zorgon.

Sorry about the atmosphere comment John. You know you love it though. Without us the Forum would not be nearly as interesting.

Your welcome I have a lot more coming...

But it seems no matter which paper I post I come back a few days later and its back to atmosphere or such...

make one wonder why I bother

Originally posted by zorgon

make one wonder why I bother

There are a few of us who want to hear what you have to say.

Please don't stop now Zorgon

I personally find this stuff fascinating Zorgon, keep up the good work.

There are a few of us who want to hear what you have to say.

Please don't stop now Zorgon

Concurred, Viceroy!

Just kidding guys and gals seriously I am just warming up...

My absence has been due to a serious case of DSL 'issues' that 'should' now be resolved... Embarq couldn't figure out what was going on so they ran a direct line and gave me an upgraded modem... so hopefully that will cure the ills...

If not maybe some of my connections can call for an airstrike

However there is an issue that has come to light Some papers I have linked to at OSTI and LANL have recently been 'pulled'

One from OSTI VERY recently...

Search Error: null
Last Updated: 12/01/2007
www.osti.gov... /

It occured to me that posting a direct link to these papers would result in thousands of hits from ATS viewers...

Might have to take a different approach here...

Also from welivefortheson...

"...all of Fox, R.H. work now has his name removed from the reference throughout the ecd, which to me is rather foolish, it only further implicates him in clandestine operations!!!
unless thats what they wanted us to believe?"

ok i think ive something that might be of interest.

in this link,is this paragraph
www.physicsforums.com...

The EPS/MIT work has drawn interest from MDA and DTRA for DEW/KEW applications and from Delphi Corporation,a major automotive electronics firm, which envisions an automotive mini-fusion reactor that would collide two small toroids generated by 1-meter-long neutron tubes" and capture the heat from their collision.

now notice in this document posted by zorgon apollo 12-17.




apollo 12-17 are delivering this device to the moon


they are the exact same even down to length!!

also notice this Q&A segment

"Were there related experiments on other flights?
Thermal neutrons were to be measured as part of the cosmic ray/regolith interaction on the CRD (S 152) on A-16. Analysis of the returned lunar samples from all the flights used thermal neutron capture to explain certain isotopic abundances.

that is the exact process of helium3 formation on the moon!

looks like they were conducting Heleium3 fusion experiments on the moon!!!



[edit on 1-12-2007 by welivefortheson]

[edit on 1-12-2007 by welivefortheson]

reply to post by welivefortheson


Nah, I doubt it. It clearly states in the description on the second link that they were measuring the properties of the regolith...the doodad you're talking about isn't nearly involved or complicated enough to begin fusion experiments.