These were taken from the national press club for something called the disclosure project. Credible witnesses who were on the "inside" and are willing to testify under oath to Congress. Each one is about 2 to 2 and a half minutes but are very good!

witness

another witness

yet another one

female witness!

witness

more witnesses

When you get some time connect these dots to George Adamski's book "Flying Saucers Have Landed", and his related double exposure photograph hoaxes of "ufos and the moon", circa 1950-

"As I was observing the moon through my six-inch telescope I noticed a number of very small pinpoints of light apparently rising form the Moon's surface. I have observed this body endless times during the last twenty years but I had never before seen anything like them. I quickly attached my camera and took this photo. Whether they were on the Moon's surface or hovering far out in space I cannot say. I only know that natural celestial bodies do not stop, start and change direction at will. I do believe that interplanetary travellers may use our satellite as a base from time to time".

And, "Many astronomers have observed similar formations."


This same guy led a reputed s*x cult involving space-lackies. Connect the dots...

**EDIT**

**Swampgator, if all you are going to do is mock, don't post.**

Don't see what that has to do with, well, anything. **EDIT** Connect those dots.

**Snozberry, if you insult in return, all you have accomplished is to become guilty of the same forum violation**

Perhaps credible to you, **EDIT**?

If you are going to make it personal, do not post.**

Sorry, but the "dots" don't connect. We all know that human fallacies are strewn throughout the entire range of human history. And I don't see you debasing such these things as well by a whole using this example that you do. Your attempt to single out Adamski and the nutty "contactees" of the 1950s as representing the whole of the worldwide UFO phenomena just doesn't hold water.

The tons of materials from around the world over many decades clearly overwhelms the nuttiness of Adamski's works, and rather than use this early 1950s example as a whole of what many astronomers have observed over 60+ years is just silly, and inappropriate.

Theodore, it's an historical snowball effect. Time, facts, personal associations of Adamski, Stanford, and the rest belies the TRUTH!

To the others- only immature, or intellectually wayward people believe there is modern evidence of alien bases on the moon. Who I am does not matter. How you waste your time does matter, and that is my message.

only immature, or intellectually wayward people can't handle the reality of bases on the moon. at the end of the day, I'll believe the experts in the links above over some internet skeptic because they had the secret and top secret security clearances and were actually there and saw it with their own eyes and are willing to testify under oath to congress about it. you just run around trying, unsuccessfully, to discredit anything you can.
I've seen some of the nasa photos that were obviously airbrushed and I will post some of them as soon as I find them again.

Here it is as promised, two of the witnesses that I linked in the initial post are talking about airbrushing ufo's and moon bases out of NASA photos and it shows a few of the airbrushed pictures. ENJOY!

Airbrushed photos, compliments of NASA

Most of them are ex-military who had top secret security clearances and some actually did some work for NASA. But your just a close-minded skeptic, nobody is credible to you except the people who run all those skeptic websites.

Yeah, alien bases on the moon, just like the stuff Richard Hoagland uses for his ideas.

Go here for an explanation of JEPEGs and moon pixs.

The "air brushed" areas and blocky formations are JEPEG artifacts. Now, I don't expect for some to believe me here, so I went out and did a bit of research on the area where "the alien base" is supposed to be. To be consistent with what's shown by the JEPEG artifacts this base would have to be miles across, so it should show up in other photos of the same area, right?

Here's an image of that same area...hmmm no alien moon base.

http://www.nwgis.com/greg/images/m050700b.jpg

Is it really necessary to "debunk" posts of this nature? How "telling" is it that anyone who happens to disagree with Snozzberry is called insulting names.

Bases on the Moon??

From a scientific point of view, any evidence in existence that cannot be provided for independent scrutiny is non-existent and cannot be included! And no matter how many eye witness reports are shown, they are not evidence either.

And about these "ex-military who had top secret security clearances and some actually did some work for NASA" guys!!!

Please name one....and while youre at it, clearly indicate the empirical evidence they can show to illustrate that they can in some way prove what they say is real....

I expect more credible witnesses to come forward as well. Amongst those who have stated that UFOs are real are:

* Astronauts and Cosmonauts

* Astronomers

* Scientist

* Engineers

* Air traffic and radar controllers who were directly involved in UFO incidents

* Police officials

* Commercial and military pilots and crewmembers who were directly involved in UFO encounters

* Senior government offcials

* Senior military officials and enlisted personnel who were directly involved in UFO encounters

* Intelligence officials

And the list goes on and on, not to mention the millions of other people worldwide.

As for those skeptical websites, I don't find them credible at all. I have consistently found flaws in their content and the skeptics there tend to get upset when I point out obvious flaws in their content.

I think that most of us will agree with you on this SKY, UFOs are real, no question about it. What Im still waiting for is hard scientific evidence that any of them are aliens here on a visit.

Exactly, UFO does not equate to alien space ship. It is far more likely to be of Earth origin. What are militaries supposed to do if they trail a new aircraft, tell everyone first?

I take it this is the Disclosure Project led by the infamous Dr. Greer.

There is a nice long thread on this here

Is it too much to ask for that debates on this topic be at a level where civility and reason have bearing? I can understand why, but it still amazes me that one cannot have a conversation without the utterly childish schoolyard tactics of making snide comments about the posters themselves, as if that does anything towards either advancing you points or making you look more credible.

No more personal insults. I'm tired of it. Either make your case, or don't post, and you feel you have been insulted, report it. If you respond back with more of the same, you will be considered just as guilty as whoever started it.

Ok, here are some questions and observations to just think about and ponder:

A - As I stated in another thread - NOT ALL "EXPERTS" and "MILITARY" had/have access to all Classified Technology going on.
STEALTH BOMBER a simple and clear point of this FACT.

B - Why should a RED FLAG OF SERIOUS DOUBT be raised when someone tells of the "TOP SECRET Clearance" they have and then just start talking about said, "Top Secrets" like it's "NO BIG DEAL"? Not to mention on FILM so they can be easily seen and proven - you talked! Think about that seriously. Who in their 'right mind' would do such a stupid thing?? Really.....
... 1. No one is just 'given' Top Secret Clearance' w/out first going through a very tough screening process.

... 2. They sign NDP (Non-Disclosure Packs). These are very very specificaly spelled out, to even what can happen to YOU, YOUR FAMILY, Your Extended Family, Your Friends, Neighbors and Fellow Employees that you relate with and/or work with. "YOU" will screw up a whole lot of people's lives, not just your own. This is very clearly spelled out.

... 3. YOU go through Monthyly, bi-weekly, weekly screenings depending on your level of clearance.

... 4. They have to the minute accounts of who, when, where and why - access to Top Secrets. There is no 'sneak' or 'lucky breaks'.

C - Do you know how easy it is for these producers to make 're-inactments'?? Very easy. I can create a 'air brush-up' cover of the moon. A lot better then "Black" & "White" squares. Plus w/all the back-yard, front-yard and roof top astronomers - NOT To mention the big scopes that are watching the moon pretty much nightly. Think about that for a few minutes too.
There is one out there by the same producer that shows "NASA Astronauts" exploring an 'alien base'. There is just one big flaw in the whole PRODUCTION - it was faked. They even forgot the NASA logos on the astronauts space suites. OOOPS. Plus the camera "fly through' - was another dead give away. OOPS. Don't believe everything on video.

1. you can go back and look at the moon photos all you want but as two of the witnesses stated, NASA always airbrushes the anomolies out before releasing them to the public. so

2. how do you know exactly where the anomolies were that they airbrushed out? they gave no specific location, except that it was on the backside of the moon which is a pretty big surface area to cover. and I think the pictures they showed speak for themselves.

I don't even know where this came from or what your reasoning is. I think we all already know this. But the fact is, most of those witnesses DID have top secret security clearances which gave them access to restricted areas/documents and other very sensitive material.


They don't just start talking about "Top Secrets" like its no big deal. They talked about their UFO and NASA moon photo experiences for 2 MINUTES and how they believe, and rightfully so, that these such things should be public info and not top secret. The government has no right to with hold such information and lie about it, period.




I think we all had a pretty good idea about this. So your point is.........?


Which is what makes these people so brave.




Again I'm having trouble figuring out what YOUR point is and Im sure Im not the only one.


This is just flat out rediculous and laughable.




Just because its easy to make a re-enactment doesn't mean it never happened! Wow. And in case you didn't know, re-enactments are recreations of things that ACTUALLY HAPPENED, thus the term RE ENACTment. Think about it.


Yeah I just love those telescopes that can see right through the moon to the other side too!




So what, guilty by association? I could care less about the producer. I wouldn't care if he spent 6 years in an insane asylum to tell the truth. He isn't the one on stage saying he had the encounters. The only people that matter are the WITNESSES. The military personnel who had top secret security clearances and saw these things first-hand and want to testify under oath to congress.

Jjbreen, you say you are not a biased skeptic but after a post like that I find it hard to believe.

I did not mean to insult anyone. I was simply trying to establish the basis for the apparently recent concept and its "rationale and supporting evidence".

I believe that it has some historical ties to the not so distant era of George Adamski. Of course, there may an instance of pop literature or science fiction, or a movie from Hollywood. But, in the main, Adamski could be largely responsible.
He was somewhat of a captivating speaker, and authored books, and lectured around the world in the 1950s.

He was succeeded by another individual, who also talked about space brothers, disaster from sunspots, and rescue crews from outer space that would save the chosen few. Predictions of events were made which never occured, and no mass landings took place.

Then, the space brothers aspect faded away from the UFO scene, and its proponents tried to use NASA and more govt. cover-up stories to sound more objective. But it was riddled with speculation, and embellished or deluded claims.

Let me just ask. Why would an outpost on the Moon be needed? To replinish, repair, restore an otherwise advanced group of explorers who must, by default, already be able to go anywhere on a moments notice? Could it be to monitor
the Earth? Why not just park in orbit, "invisibly" or with stealth? What is so appealing about a battered up satellite orbiting our planet?

Well you are exactly right w/your own words:

A - Anomolies can be anything - from blurs, Pictures w/blocked section that didn't develope right, to just about anything that isn't ALIEN.
Heck I guess I cover up my photos' too. I take out "red eyes". I take out blemishes and stuff out the background for a cleaner picture. I've also done photo restoration from old photos didgitally scanned into the computer.
There are are A LOT of non-conspiracy reasons to 'fix up' pictures.
So NASA is not allowed to clean up and make "nice" a picture, without it being labeled, "COVER UP"??

Plus in all honesty look at the Black and the White Squares - who is to say the person making the claim didn't fabricate this picture?? It is very possible.

Plus there was a recent thread where a person on UM used another site to "show NASA cover up of a two Mars Photos." Was there a 'cover-up'? Not in the sense that we mean it. First the two pictures in question were taken 4 years apart. (NOT days or weeks.) The "cover up" - Martian dust storms and weather over 4 years are to "blame for the "cover-up"" - NOT NASA. But yet this is some how "blamed on NASA" when NASA had NOTHING to do with it. This is one of many 'leaps' of accusations there were just silly.

B - They didn't give any specific location. Doesn't that tell you something right there? Each picture from NASA is known and ID exactly when, where, why -- so there WOULD BE specifics available. So the question needs be asked: Why didn't they give this information out so that it could be VALIDATED??

Jj -

Either brave or stupid. Or maybe they are lying.
I can see where you are coming from snozzberry, but it will take more than a black square and a few smudged images from the moon (supposedly the rear side of the moon but can you really tell?) to convince me of a moon base. When i first saw the disclosure project i believed it, but i then began to doubt its authenticity due to Dr. Greer and the fact that these witnesses haven't yet 'dissapeared'.

Something else i wondered - how do you airbrush out things on a 35mm film??

I have seen some of these's before, I'm not sure how much credit they are going to get..But some or pretty good source's i think....

I simply chose one of the places they (the disclosure project people) were saying showed rectangles of a alien moon base. The image is contained here. There are some JPEG artifacts west of Mare Fecunditatis Messier...that was the same area I then provided a photo of showing no alien base present as a comparison.

The pictures speak for themselves alright. These pictures are examples of over-magnified, over-compressed images showing compression noise. They're not pictures of an alien moon base, they're what you get when you over-manipulate an image.

The fact is these people said they saw pictures of buildings, spherical structures, and towers and that NASA airbrushes them out before releasing them to the public. They are not just anybody from off the street making claims, they have credible backrounds and are willing to testify under oath to congress. I believe what they are saying is true with no doubt in my mind. Why would respected former military members just come out and make such claims knowing the persecution and mockery that surrounds these subjects? There not going to risk their reputation and possibly their lives over a bunch of outrageous lies.

Someone was citing Clementine images as evidence of anomalies on the Moon? That mission was known to be very deficient in many respects, with areas not resolved properly, etc. I read some comments by researchers several years ago- and the were saying the mission needed to be done better.

Also, the used IR, visible, and NUV. One must understand how to interpret specific images.

I am still waiting for someone to prove the flying saucers over over Washington D.C. as ours. Even the CAA's own flight crews (NR-12) confirmed the UFOs in the skies. Those involved in SAC's missile shutdowns have also confirmed the UFOs as flying saucers and it is not likely those flying saucers were ours and physical trace evidence left behind at UFO landing sites have been noted and examined scientifically as well. In fact, some of that physical evidence was recently presented on TV along with scientific analysis of the test samples.

Edit did not work- A few anomalous "y" images never made it. Appologies.

The fatal problem with your argument here is that objects of this scale, i.e. several miles across, would be visible in the vast majority of amateur telescopes. In good conditions an 8 inch reflector will show objects less than one mile across on the moon. An 8 inch reflector is regarded as a telescope for a serious beginner. Larger telescope will have greater resolution and so will see even smaller objects on the moon. NASA can not air brush out what millions of people can see with their own eyes.

thats true but the witnesses clearly state that the base was on the dark side of the moon, not visible to anyone on earth.

So what, it really doesn't matter what their backgrounds are. You're offering up a combination of Bandwagon and Appeal to Authority fallacy.

People have a variety of reasons for saying things that there's no good evidence for. Perhaps some of them really believe what they are saying is the truth. Perhaps some of them are lying for reasons unknown to us. Perhaps some of them are delusional. Perhaps some just enjoy being pranksters. Perhaps some of them really are telling the objective truth.

How do we determine which is which? Evidence is what is needed here, not just people's stories.

ok im going to put my two cents in here lol...

1 i believe these people are clearly not lieing. i mean watching the video of the disclosure project, some of them actually seem a little shaken and kinda scared to come forward about this. if they are lieing, they should win acadamy awards in my eyes.

2 just as stated why would these people come forward just to lie about this subject when they know this is a very very sensitive subject to persecution?

in my eyes i think that these people are speaking the truth about these events in every way possible.

to the airbrushed photos, these to are clear signs of airbrushing to "cover" these things so that the world will not know. the united states military is so covert and secretive its sick to my stomach to think of what kind of technologies we posses but dont apply to everyday life. just like the nazis. there is evidence of nazi flying saucers and this was before the 1950's. so put that in a logical sense to the way technology progresses if they have had some inkling of knowledge and research for the past 60 or so years there has to be steps forward and technological advances.

but anyways to support snozzberry, i believe these people and the events they have witnessed are to be true.

Hello! Earth to pipers of the pied "news" conference. Can someone give me ONE sensible reason for an ADVANCED OUTPOST on our Moon?

I watched a few minutes of the taped news conference. Some blond got up and said a few things, then launched into an anti-SDI (Space Defence Initiative) detour. Can you see an AGENDA at this venue? Was her motive science- OR POLITICAL LAMBASTING???

They could also be shaking because they are nervous at talking in front of an audience, it can do that to people if they are not used it (or even if they are).

leadbelly to see if i can answer your question for you...

1 maybe they dont have cloaking capabilities i mean just cause they are superior doesnt mean they can cloak. so there they rule out of a cloaking satellite instead of a moon base.

2 why waste that time to make a cloaking satellite when there already is an orbiting satellite of our earth. yes it is far away but its more feaseable to think they have high resolution cameras

3 they can set up refueling stations or supplies there so tat they wouldnt have to travel such long distances to supply themselves or get info. as far as we know, there is no life in our solar system, so they have to be coming from a good distance away unless they have faster than light travel then the moon is perfect. i mean if you think about it just apply simple war tactics to it if you want to recon an area what do you do? stay hidden, be silent, keep your distance if possible.
and what better way to do that than our moon.

to me its one of the most perfect places to set one up other than a remote location on earth but even that would have more of a risk than the moon.

There is no dark side of the moon, so I take it you mean the far side (in the video it is described as the back side). Admittedly that would hide bases from amateurs.



The problem is we do not have a first hand account of the airbrushing. We have a witness who claims she was told NASA was airbrushing photographs. All she claims saw was a photo with around dot on it. She may be 100% truthful (she may not) but even if she is we have to also rely on the honesty of the unknown person that told her. All she gives is hearsay. That would not be admissible in any court.

Okay so according to you a homeless crackhead who has been in and out of prison a few times has just as much credibility as a retired military officer or DIA with top secret security clearances.


Yeah I'm so sure these respected individuals are going to risk their reputation, and risk persecution by their peers and media, not to mention jail time for lying under oath to congress, because they are pranksters. And you accuse THEM of being delusional??




For me and many others, the testimony of these people and many others just like them, along with all the photographs and video of flying saucers and eyewitness accounts is more than enough evidence. If your looking for actual physical evidence, it could be hard to find because as one of the witnesses in the initial post said of the UFO crash he was involved in, the government comes in and cleans it all up and then says it was one of our planes that crashed.

Receiving End of Sirens-

Allow me this- The world went through WWII, and the A-bomb. There were airborn vehicles, including rockets. In the early 1950's there were jet aircraft used in the Korean War. There was an intercontinental rocket developed in the late 1950's by the Russians, and Sputnik.

There were missions to the Moon to prep for a surface exploration, by both the Soviets and Americans, in the mid-1960's. The Soviets first strip-imaged the far side, then the U.S. (the U.S. later got terrific images from the Apollo orbiters).The Apollo missions to the moon began in 1969, but not without a lot of prepatory fanfare- Mercury, Gemini missions (into earth orbit), etc. That amounts to a lot of evidence we were on our way to visit the moon with space craft.

As well, the U.S sent up rockets to spy on the Soviets, beginning in 1960- Project Corona. That should have been a heads-up to the "aliens" to camoflauge or remove their above surface structures. Unless it is proferred the sites were
abandoned, or the occupants were unable, out-of-town, disinterested, or whatever.

If there was ever a time to conceal a hidden outpost, it was during the 1960's, or even prior, because of the obvious conclusion- humans were going to go to the Moon. We are surface explorers, and the logical extension applies to near space. Why did secretive space visitors allow this? Did they turn a blind eye? Want to cause a political and cultural episode- to a planet that nearly destroyed western civilization during the Bay of Pigs?


Here is what I hear. The U.S. has a mentioned a set of plans to send a manned mission to the far side in 2018. They will launch The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter to study that area in 2008. Meantime, they have to pre-condition a lot of scientists and contractors to this notion of aliens on, or beneath the Moon. Easy? I doubt it.

The picture refers to Project Corona- circa 1960.

It depends...does the crackhead have defintive/irrefutable evidence for his claims?



Well, anything is possible and people will often take risks for fame or money. Or, maybe because they themselves are delusional?




Ok, it's enough for you. It's not enough for me (and many others who have a scientific background). As for the government cover up hypothesis...I'll be needing some evidence for that one as well.

That is EXACTLY how it is done and I can cite one very good example.

An F-117 stealth fighter crashed outside Bakerfield, CA and the Air Force covered up the crash site up by claiming the crash was that of an ordinary jet aircraft. To make a point, they flew in crash remains of an F-101 Voodoo and spread it out over the crash site and tried to convince the media that is what really crashed there, an ordinary jet aircraft. But the Air Force blew it when it declared the crash site a "national security zone" and that is what set off the alarm bells all over the place and it wasn't long afterwards the Air Force admitted that the crash site was that of a stealth fighter.

So here is a case where the Air Force tried to cover-up the crash of a classified aircraft by substituting crash remains of a typical nonclassified jet aircraft just as it had done by substituting remains of a weather balloon to cover-up what really crashed at Roswell.

All kinds of classified aircraft, from the 1940's to the 1990's, have been revealed to the public but what crashed at Roswell in 1947 is still being covered up to this very day. Question is: what crashed and why was Wright-Patterson AFB involved?

Correction to previous post- Cuban Missile Crisis aftermath.

Wht was a crashed alien spaceship not recovered by the aliens? Are they assumed shameless? Indifferent? Want for communications?

Or, is there no good explanation?

There could be other answers but what many people are unaware of was the U.S. Army's "Interplanetary Phenomenon Unit (IPU) whose purpose was to recover downed spacecraft and this is where it gets interesting because when the unit became operational, there were no spacecraft in earth orbit since that was still years away and not long ago, the Army finally confirmed the existence of that unit. Now, it is known that Project Moon Dust and Operation Blue Fly were used to facilitate recovery missions of the so-called "unknown objects."

The Air Force has now taken over recovery missions from the Army.

O.K. I read about the IPU at Wiki. That appears to have some basis. There was mention of MJ-12. I looked into that, and it contained a lot of material that was not verifiable, in my mind, in so far as I do not have knowledge of it.

Be that as it may, there was a final reference to Area 51, and a "Dr." Dan Burich. I went to his website. There were DVDs for sale, so I linked to Google and watched about ten minutes of two videos.

Now, there is a pre-frontal case.

These hillbillies expect me to believe his delusiory ramblings? He's a PhD biologist, and I just fell off the turnip truck!

That is the problem with internet credentials, stories and lore. If there is something REAL to exotic UFOs, the plume arising from the huxters is, nonetheless, too thick and stench ridden to suit my tastes.

Perhaps there are more credible reports, somewhere. I'm beginning to believe, one needs actual firsthand knowledge of anything of such a nature as this topic proposes.

Ok, I had a "little" talk w/my lawyer this afternoon. <-- Please note that. I talked to him about the NDP's that I have signed and what I wanted to say. He told me that what I was saying was generic enough, that I had nothing to be concerned about. So here it goes.

I have several NDP's 'over my head'. These are NO small documents. It is not "bravery" to break them, it is down right stupid. Here is why. They are not just BREAKING THE LAW- they are screwing up the lives of their:
a. Family Life - Wife and Children's present and future.
b. Their extended family's life. Parents, In-laws, Brother's, sisters - etc.
c. Their friends and their families.
d. Their fellow workers.

... IF indeed their so claimed access to "Top Secrets" is valid, which must be seriously challenge - they could get wind up in court for any and ALL legal and financial damages that other's suffer because of their breaking the NDP. Trust me, NO ONE HAS ANY ACCESS TO TOP SECRETS WITHOUT SIGNING A STACK FULL OF NDP's. Not to mention the no small security check they have to go through.

See you just do NOT go on "Public Talk Shows" about Top Secrets without first checking w/your lawyer what you can and cannot say. If you choose to violate that NDP, most lawyers will drop you. Think about that. You loose a lot more then you get. So to just say it's brave' is not really understanding the full picture of what is at play here.

This is what I find so curious about all of this. I live w/NDP's and I have a bunch of friends that have clearance to stuff I do not. Anyone that is REALLY into Top Secrets and Security and NDP's - this is NO TRIVAL, talk show 'chat'.

I have friends in the FBI - CIA and Military that even have stricter CODES w/their NDP's. This is serious stuff. It's not just "brave" talk show chats. Government NDP's can be treated for High Crimes against the US.

But here is the big question:
How do you know these people are telling you the truth?? Think about that seriously - what credible material have they supplied to validate their claims?? These people 'supposedly' worked for the same agencies you DO NOT TRUST. So here is the basis of your sudden trust -> They are telling you ... WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR. That is the basis of your trust, they are telling you what you want to hear. Nothing more and nothing less. They offer no credible evidence to their claim - they just 'name drop' and show some photos. Nothing more. So how do you honestly know they are not 'feeding you what you want to hear' from the people you do not trust??

Also no one just 'gets' Top Secret Clearance without a lot of HOOPS to jump. They go through NO SMALL background check. Especially the more sensitive the Secret the more serious the check and balances go on. Not to mention security checks anually based on one's level of Classified Material. It can be up to weekly screenings and Questions and Answers and Polygraph tests.

Living in w/this reality is a very real, with very real consiquences. I am wondering and seeing that most of you simply do not get and/or really have an undestanding of what exactly is at play??

I would challenge you to do this: When someone talks about "Top Secrets" in specifics, ask them about their NDP's and the legal issues that is involved. Ask them if their lawyer can validate the existance NDP's and if they will submit to a polygraph test to validate their story? Then watch their reaction - that will tell you a whole lot. In fact I would even go so far as to ask them, where is their lawyer while they were making these bold claims?? You believe them, WHY??

Jj

First of all they are not giving away that many secrets. Some of them aren't giving away any top secret secrets at all but merely telling of personal experiences and encounters. Its not like they are going on TV and divulging a new top secret weapon or new type of military aircraft. They are in no way jeapordizing national security. And the fact is, the "government" has no right to keep these truths from the public and continuously lie about it. So I applaud these people for being patriots and having the guts to come forward the information.


This is ridiculous. Do you REALLY think these people will get taken to court for saying that they have seen evidence which supports the theory that UFO's are alien craft or NASA airbrushed moon bases out of their photos and the government is hiding all of this???????????????? THINK ABOUT IT. And explain just how any financial losses will come from them divulging this info??
Also take note of this: If they were to be taken to court for exposing these "top secrets", the government would therefore be ADMITTING that what they're saying is TRUE!! THINK ABOUT IT!




You heard it here first folks! You know that theory that these forums are being monitored by the government? Well heres your proof. So what exactly is your job? To report any people who get too close to the truth or are you just here to try to debunk all you can to sway people away from the truth?

These are two of the least credible appearing or sounding individuals I can imagine. Loonatics and liars! What is an airman second class- an E2? And this guy packs authority? Right!

Is this the woman who talked about NASA guards gun-butting an employee for not destroying evidense fast enough?

Sounds like credibility is lightyears away!